medeval_list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the qualifier 'observable' which may imply a filtering or subset of runs, but it does not explain what 'observable' means. This adds minimal context beyond the structured hints, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the action and resource. It earns a 5 for efficiency.

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 an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description omits details like pagination (limit) behavior, what 'observable' means, and any prerequisites. With only two parameters, it is not highly complex, but the lack of context around 'observable' and limit leaves some gaps. A 3 reflects moderate completeness.

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 for both parameters. The description only indirectly references workspace_id via 'for one workspace', but it does not explain the meaning of the limit parameter. No additional details on formats, defaults, or behavior are provided. This partial compensation is insufficient; a 2 reflects the incomplete guidance.

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 action (List) and the resource (observable workflow runs and agent progress) scoped to one workspace. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like medeval_get_run (singular run) and medeval_list_projects (different resource), though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them. The scope 'for one workspace' adds clarity.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when to prefer medeval_get_run or medeval_get_agent_context. According to the rubric, no guidance earns a 2.

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