get-actor-run-list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: sorting behavior when desc=true, account-wide scope (no per-actor filter), the actId field for matching, and that entries contain defaultDatasetId and defaultKeyValueStoreId. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit/offset.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences: the first states the primary function and the use case, the second removes a potential ambiguity (account-wide, no per-actor filter), and the third connects the results to the companion tools. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without annotations and an output schema, the description explains the main behavior, scope, sort order, and what the returned entries contain (runId, dataset/KVS ids). It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool; the schema fills the remaining parameter details.

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 four parameters. The description adds context around desc=true and the run-related fields, but it does not deepen parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema; thus a baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List Actor runs for the authenticated user') and clarifies the key ordering behavior ('newest first with desc=true'). It clearly differentiates this list tool from the sibling get-actor-run and get-actor-run-log by framing it as the account-wide entry point to obtain runId values.

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?

Strong usage context: it declares this is the recovery entry point after a client timeout and explicitly states there is no per-actor filter; it tells the agent to subsequently use the id field as runId for companion tools. It does not name the alternative tools explicitly, but the intended routing is clear.

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