list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the context that data comes from a sanitised dataset. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or what 'recent' means. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the core purpose. However, the lack of parameter semantics and vague 'recent' leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent must rely on the parameter name and default value, which is insufficient for understanding its semantics (e.g., how limit affects results).

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?

Clearly states the action ('List'), the object ('recent Maester runs'), and the data source ('sanitised DuckDB dataset'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on summaries, histories, or comparisons.

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 implies usage for listing runs but provides no explicit context about when to choose this over alternatives like get_run_summary or get_test_history. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, making this a minimal viable guideline.

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