Training List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by disclosing that results come from two distinct sources (remote Tinker runs vs. persistent local Tuner records), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when run history is unavailable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core distinction is placed first and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a list tool with three entirely undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing about source values and paging, making it only minimally sufficient.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description hints at the 'source' axis (remote vs. local) but never maps it to the parameter or its values, and gives no meaning for limit or offset. With low coverage, the description needed to compensate more than it does.

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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('remote Tinker runs or persistent local Tuner workflow records'), which separates it from checkpoint_list, sessions_list, and recipes_list. The only weakness is that it does not explicitly name the sibling list tools it differs from, relying on jargon ('Tinker', 'Tuner') that an agent may not resolve on its own.

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 on when to call this versus training_get, training_metrics, training_logs, or sessions_list, nor any note on prerequisites or pagination workflow. The reader must infer usage from the name alone.

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