get_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List.' It does not mention pagination behavior, maximum result size, ordering, return format, or that this is a read-only operation beyond what the verb implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the action, resource, and scope while remaining appropriately compact.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level listing statement. It does not explain the return shape, pagination semantics, filter behavior, or what fields are included in a listed run, leaving important operational context unspecified.

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 input schema already documents all 11 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the context that runs are scoped 'for a project,' which aligns with the required project_id parameter but provides no additional semantic value 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List test runs for a project.' The plural 'test runs' clearly distinguishes this from the singular 'get_run' sibling, and the project scoping matches the required project_id parameter.

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 such as get_run, add_run, update_run, or close_run. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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