List runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: default ordering (newest first, overridable via `sort`) and cursor-based pagination returning next_cursor. The one gap is that it never says how multiple filters combine (AND vs. one-at-a-time).

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, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then the read-one sibling, then return shape. Nearly every clause carries information, though the trailing return-shape sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema and could be trimmed.

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 10-parameter list tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, filtering, ordering, pagination and result fields adequately. The remaining ambiguity is whether the phrase "one status, one task, one worker or one company" means mutually exclusive filter modes or one value per filter — a point an agent could get wrong on a multi-filter query.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the filters are single-valued ("one status, one task, one worker or one company") and default ordering is newest-first unless `sort` is supplied. It does not clarify the concise/detailed response_format tradeoff beyond naming it, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lists worker runs") and immediately enumerates the concrete subtypes (chats with Heliyos, task runs, automatic runs), so the agent knows exactly what domain object this returns. It also names the sibling heliyos_runs_get for single-record reads, making it distinguishable from the rest of the runs/records family.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to enumerate, use heliyos_runs_get to read one. The filter vocabulary (status, task, worker, company, date range) tells the agent which situations this tool serves. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do when no filter matches, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not decision rule.

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