Cursor: list runs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by noting 'newest first' ordering and explaining that status carries CREATING/RUNNING/terminal values, which informs the caller on interpreting the output. No contradiction with annotation; the operation is read-only.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and then adding a useful note about status values. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a simple listing tool.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values are covered. The description adequately states scope and ordering, but it does not mention that the result is paginated via limit/cursor, and the usage guidance gap (dimension 2) also contributes to a slight incompleteness. The information provided is useful but not fully complete for a tool with these three parameters.

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 coverage is only 33% (only agentId has a schema description). The description relates the agentId to 'an agent's runs' but says nothing about limit (page size) or cursor (pagination token). It does not compensate for the low schema coverage and leaves the two optional parameters undocumented.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('runs'), and the scope ('an agent's runs') plus the ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cursor_get_run (single run) and cursor_inspect_runs (different purpose) by resource level, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a list is preferred over cursor_get_run, cursor_inspect_runs, or cursor_wait_run, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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