get_hex_project_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the runs' and returns a 'JSON string,' but does not describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by limit/offset but not explained), error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose is front-loaded, and parameter and return details are concise. It avoids redundancy, though minor improvements could include integrating defaults or clarifying JSON structure.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors, side effects) and detailed return value explanation beyond 'JSON string.' Without annotations or output schema, more information is needed for the agent to use the tool effectively in varied scenarios.

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 description lists parameters (project_id, limit, offset) and their purposes in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not elaborate on format details (e.g., UUID validation for project_id, default values for limit/offset, or constraints like minimum/maximum values). With low schema coverage, it partially compensates but lacks depth for full parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the runs for a specific project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('runs for a specific project'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' or 'run_hex_project,' which might also involve project runs, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' for status checks or 'run_hex_project' for initiating runs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit context.

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