List evaluation runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only listing operation, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, result limits, or what happens when no runs exist.

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 single sentence is concise with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment and does not front-load an explicit action verb such as 'List'.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the listing behavior and return shape. It states only that previous evaluation runs exist for the agent, leaving key details about the result set unstated.

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 all five optional parameters with defaults are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that 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 names the resource ('evaluation runs') and scope ('for the agent'), and the tool name implies listing. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like cs_get_evaluation_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?

It implies the tool is for viewing previous evaluation runs, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of cs_run_evaluation or cs_get_evaluation_run. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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