runtimes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire burden. It discloses user-scoped visibility and that returned entries are valid as a runtime argument, but says nothing about safety profile, rate limits, pagination, or ordering beyond the read-only implication of 'List'.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the recovery-workflow hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 restated, and for a zero-parameter list tool the agent only needs to know why and when to call it plus how to reuse the result, both of which are covered.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description has nothing to disambiguate and schema coverage is moot. Baseline of 4 applies; the second sentence usefully explains how the result feeds into other calls' runtime argument.

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 ('List the Kranz project runtimes') scoped to the calling user's visibility, which is enough to separate it from 'runs' and 'run_delete' in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it lands just below the top of the scale.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional trigger: read this first when a call returns runtime_required or runtime_not_found. That is a clear 'when' with a concrete downstream action, but there is no statement of when this tool is not needed and no named alternative.

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