list_authoring_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation ('list') and implies no side effects. However, it does not mention any potential filtering, pagination, or authorization requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the purpose. No extraneous words.

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 (one optional parameter, list operation), the description is reasonably complete. The presence of an output schema may compensate for not describing the return format. However, among many sibling tools related to authoring runs, more context on what distinguishes this from other run-related tools would be beneficial.

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 one optional parameter ('output_dir') with a default. The description does not mention this parameter, but since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate. However, the parameter is self-explanatory (output directory), and the default suggests it's not critical. The description's lack of parameter info is offset by the parameter's simplicity, so score is above baseline.

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 lists all known authoring runs and their current status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('authoring runs'), and the context of 'current status' adds useful detail. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_run_status' or 'resume_authoring_run', which might overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_run_status' (which might return a single run's status). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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