wisepanel_list_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'List') and output structure, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or session-specific constraints. It adds basic context but misses deeper operational insights.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('List all Wisepanel deliberation runs'), followed by scope and output details in a single, efficient sentence. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and output fields, yet lacks context on how runs are tracked, what 'session' entails, or potential limitations. For a list tool with no structured metadata, more completeness would enhance usability.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by clarifying the tool's scope and return data.

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 specific action ('List all Wisepanel deliberation runs') and resource ('tracked in this session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'wisepanel_start' (create) or 'wisepanel_cancel' (terminate). It specifies the scope ('in this session') and output fields (run_id, status, topic, panel size), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'tracked in this session' and listing return fields, suggesting it's for retrieving existing runs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wisepanel_poll' (check status) or 'wisepanel_result' (get detailed outcomes), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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