Get Runs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (runId, status, jobName, startTime, endTime, tags) and the limit default, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination/result caps, ordering guarantees, or what the 'env' scope does. For a list tool the safety profile is low risk, so this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then return fields, then sibling routing, then grouped filtering, then worked examples. Every line is scannable and none is filler; the example block earns its space by making the filter syntax unambiguous.

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, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still names the fields, which is a bonus. Combined with the status enum and examples, an agent has nearly everything needed; the only real omission is any guidance on the undocumented 'env' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: job_name is explained with an example, statuses enumerates all eight valid values with example lists, and limit documents its default of 10. The gap is 'env', which is neither described in the schema nor mentioned in the description.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List recent pipeline runs') and immediately distinguishes itself from the many get_run_* siblings by declaring itself the entry point ('Start here to discover what has been running') and routing detailed lookups elsewhere. An agent can place it in the tool family without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the four drill-down alternatives (get_run_status, get_run_logs, get_run_stats, get_run_failure_summary) and chains to them via runId, then supplies three concrete invocation patterns ('Find recent failures', 'Check if a job ran today', 'Monitor active runs'). The when-to-use decision is fully specified.

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