list_stored_runs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: the scope ('all recorded runs') and the sort order ('newest first'), and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or how many runs are returned, which matters for a store-backed listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the ordering constraint where it best fits. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and a no-argument list tool needs little prose. The description covers scope and ordering, but omits whether results are bounded or paged, a minor gap for a listing over a persistent store.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recorded runs in the Biofact store'), plus the ordering ('newest first'). It clearly differs from siblings like replay_run, record_step, and validate_file, which are distinct verbs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_run or provenance_report, which are the closest related read tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as check_run (single run) or provenance_report (lineage detail), which an agent would plausibly consider for related queries. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.