List flow runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it declares read-only, discloses that this uses a separate Power Automate sign-in from Dataverse (cs_login scope 'flow'), and honestly flags 'Unverified against a live tenant.' It stops short of describing result limits or error behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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-loaded with the user question it answers, then the shape of the result, then the sibling handoff and auth caveats. Efficient, though the auth/CPS-environment caveat sentence is dense and pushes length close to the limit.

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, so describing the returned fields (status, start/end, duration, failed-run error) is essential and present. Combined with the auth-domain note and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including flowId's cross-reference to cs_list_flows. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit mention of run fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (run history of one cloud flow) with ordering and the exact fields returned (status, start/end time, duration, error). It is cleanly distinguished from cs_get_flow_run and cs_explain_flow_run, which appear as siblings.

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?

Frames the use case as answering 'when did this flow last run, and did it work?' and then names the downstream alternative explicitly: 'find the run you care about, then cs_explain_flow_run on that run to learn why it failed.' The when-to-use and the handoff are both explicit.

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