List flow runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, return ordering, returned fields, separate Power Automate sign-in via cs_login scope 'flow', and an unverified-against-live-tenant caveat. It does not state default top behavior or pagination limits, but the core safety and auth profile is disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the core question and return shape, then adds read-only status, next-step routing, and authentication caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the important return fields and explains the auth model and follow-up tool. It leaves default top behavior and pagination unstated, which is a minor gap for a list operation with a top parameter.

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 already documents all six parameters in detail. The description only implies flowId via 'one cloud flow' and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: the run history of one cloud flow, most recent first, including status, timestamps, duration, and failed-run error. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to cs_explain_flow_run for deeper analysis.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it: to answer when a flow last ran and whether it worked, then to find the run to pass to cs_explain_flow_run. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against cs_get_flow_run or cs_compare_flow_runs, leaving minor ambiguity.

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