list_synthesis_runs_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary with outcomes, iterations, and fitness, which gives insight into the response. However, it doesn't address read-only semantics, pagination, or errors. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but it's not explicit.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return summary. No redundant wording.

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?

As a simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose and some return content, but lacks edge cases, differentiation from siblings, and details on the summary structure. Adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description only loosely ties the projectId parameter to a 'project' without explaining format, source, or requirements. For a single parameter, this is minimal but not absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all synthesis runs') and scope ('for a project'), and adds return details. It doesn't explicitly contrast with similar siblings like get_run_history_tool, but the resource is specific enough.

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 on when to choose this over alternatives such as get_run_history_tool or list_verification_backends_tool. The description provides no context for when to use or when not to use.

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