get_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists returned fields (runId, status, jobName, etc.) and explains filtering parameters with valid values and examples. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a list operation, transparency is high.

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 well-structured with sections for returns, filtering, and typical workflows. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. The formatting aids readability. A slightly more concise version could still be effective, but it is not excessive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, 0 required, output schema exists), the description covers the main parameters and usage patterns. It explains return fields and provides examples. It could mention default sorting or limit behavior, but overall it is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_name, statuses (with valid values and examples), and limit (default 10). However, the env parameter is not described, so coverage is incomplete. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'List recent pipeline runs' and frames it as the starting point for discovery. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_run_status by indicating that get_runs is for initial listing and returns runIds for further drill-down.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Start here to discover what has been running.' It offers typical workflows such as finding failures, checking job runs, and monitoring active runs. It also directs users to use the returned runId with other tools, effectively differentiating when to use each sibling.

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