List evaluation runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not describe the return format (e.g., list of run IDs, statuses), and gives no indication of side effects or authentication requirements. The phrase 'previous evaluation runs' is a noun phrase, not a behavioral statement.

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 extremely terse, consisting of a single phrase. While it is concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding necessary detail. It lacks structure and fails to convey any information beyond the tool's name, making it an inadequate substitute for a proper definition.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., run metadata, statuses) nor how each parameter filters results. An agent would have to infer the tool's behavior from its name alone, which is insufficient for a correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific context, leaving the baseline score at 3 as per the rubric. There is no additional meaning or clarification about how parameters like botId or environmentId affect the query.

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 states it returns 'previous evaluation runs for the agent', which identifies the resource but relies on the title for the verb 'list'. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like cs_get_evaluation_run or cs_run_evaluation, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns a list of runs versus a single run.

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. It does not mention that it is for viewing historical runs, nor does it contrast with cs_get_evaluation_run or cs_run_evaluation. The description gives no context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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