list_evals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does that by specifying output details (newest first, convergence scores, top concerns, moderator summaries) and the full-run retrieval behavior via run_id. It could add more about pagination or rate limits, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary purpose, then explains the branching behavior, then gives application use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is simple (3 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers all functional branches: with URL, without URL, and using run_id for deep inspection. It also lists what the returned data contains, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that url filters by domain, run_id retrieves 'complete persona outputs', and limit controls record count. This enriches parameter understanding enough to warrant a 4.

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 'List saved eval runs from the eval store', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_eval and get_logs by focusing on the eval store and the conditional behavior (per-domain history vs. all domains).

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If a URL or domain is provided, returns... If no URL is provided, returns...' and includes example use cases like tracking trends and comparing runs. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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