runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is one line per trace, oldest first, and includes specific fields (run id, exit, event count, command). It also explains the 'refocus rerun' naming behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention pagination, limits, or what happens with no traces.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action ('list recorded traces') and then packs the output format and a special case (refocus rerun) into a compact structure. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the output looks like, the ordering, and the fields. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe edge cases like empty results or whether the list is truncated, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema is empty). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists recorded traces, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('recorded traces'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like info, tree, frame, and flow by focusing on the run-level trace listing. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not differentiating from potential similar 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?

The description implies usage: when you want to see recorded traces at a glance. It provides output format details (one line per trace, oldest first, fields) which helps an agent know what to expect. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like flow or info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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