runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the catalog includes provenance and output retention state, which adds useful context about returned data. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The only minor issue is the vague term 'bounded', but the sentence is otherwise efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and a well-described optional parameter, the description covers what is returned. It falls short on usage context—when to prefer 'runs' over similar siblings like 'runtimes' or 'action_list'—and does not clarify what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 single runtime parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the runtime parameter, making 3 the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Return) and resource (service and action run catalog), and adds provenance and output retention state. It distinguishes itself from most siblings, though 'bounded' is ambiguous and it never names the adjacent runtimes or action_list tool for contrast.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as runtimes, action_list, or run_delete. The description only says what it returns, not the context or conditions that select it.

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