list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool lists runs with optional filters, which is typical for a read operation. However, it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, permissions, or pagination details beyond the limit parameter.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence summarizing purpose followed by a clear list of parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 (not shown), so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, all parameters, and filter options. Minor omissions: no mention that the operation is read-only or how results are ordered. Still, it is largely complete for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the meaning of each parameter: target_type values, status values, and limit with default and max. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 that the tool lists pipeline/upload/transformation runs with optional filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'runs' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines and list_transformations.

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 explains the filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_run or get_run_logs. It is adequate for a listing tool but lacks when-not-to-use information.

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