list_cde_job_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it provides no details beyond restating the function name. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or how runs are scoped (e.g., all runs vs. recent). The parenthetical clarifies purpose, not behavior.

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 a single sentence, directly starting with the verb 'List' and including all essential information. There is no redundant text or filler, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

Despite the output schema existing, the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The description does not explain the required job_name parameter or optional credential parameters, leaving the agent uncertain about prerequisites and invocation. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple configuration parameters.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It only hints at 'job_name' by saying 'for a job', but provides no explanation for the optional cde_user, cde_password, or cde_endpoint_url parameters. This is minimal value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List CDE runs for a job' with the purpose of monitoring execution status. This verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cde_jobs (which lists jobs) and get_cde_job_run_status (which gets a single run's status). The parenthetical adds clarity to the intent without ambiguity.

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 phrase '(monitor execution status)' gives clear context for when to use this tool—when you want to check the status of a job's runs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or name any exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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