run_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether this is read-only. The only behavioral content is the data source, which is minimal for a list tool with zero structured support.

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?

It is short, but half the sentence is rationale ('so an agent can see what was already tried') rather than operational information, and the missing verb makes it read as an incomplete clause. Under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, plain object schema), so a short description can be adequate, but with no output schema the description should at least gesture at what a run record contains or how results are ordered. The unresolved 'this profile' reference also leaves selection semantics unclear.

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 schema takes no parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The phrase 'this profile's' implies an implicit ambient profile context rather than a parameter, which is mildly ambiguous but does not introduce an undocumented argument.

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?

The description identifies the resource and its scope ('this profile's earlier runs'), so an agent can infer a listing operation, but there is no explicit verb and the fragment reads as a clause rather than a definition. It also doesn't distinguish itself from similarly named siblings such as start_run or passkey_list.

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?

The trailing rationale ('so an agent can see what was already tried') hints at a use case — checking prior attempts to avoid duplication — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No guidance on whether this supersedes or complements start_run or other list tools.

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