List run templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are page-bounded and a continuation token is returned when more exist, telling the agent to expect incremental retrieval.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource identity comes first and the pagination behavior follows. Nothing could be removed 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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by describing the page-plus-token return shape. Only the default page size behavior under exhaustion is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with page_size (1-100, default 50) and page_token fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the pagination concept, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 (reusable evaluation configurations / run templates) scoped to the authorized organization, so an agent can distinguish it from list_runs or list_reports by subject matter. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'in the authorized organization' and the listing nature of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_runs or get_run, and no stated preconditions.

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