List Study Runs

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, while the description adds substantial non-obvious semantics: budget presence is backend-dependent, missing budget means unknown support rather than permission, and capacity is rechecked at reservation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. The budget and capacity details are packed efficiently, though the final sentence about recovering an uncertain launch is somewhat tangential to the act of listing.

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?

For a read-only list operation with one input parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and the most important non-obvious behaviors. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves the relationship to sibling tools like list_runs implicit.

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% and the description does not mention study_id at all, so no parameter-level meaning is added beyond the input schema. The single parameter is self-explanatory from its name and schema title, which softens the gap, but the description still fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List preserved attempts including pending and failed runs.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-run tools like get_study_run, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a top score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_runs or get_study_run. The budget and capacity notes explain how to interpret results, not when this tool should be chosen.

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