list_inference_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list recent' but does not explain how 'recent' is determined (e.g., creation time), whether results are ordered, if pagination is supported, or if the operation is read-only. The lack of detail on behavior is a significant 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?

The description is extremely short (5 words), which is concise but severely under-specified. It omits essential information about the parameter and behavior, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter's role, the meaning of 'recent', or how the tool fits into the broader workflow.

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%, so the description must add meaning for the limit parameter. It does not mention limit at all—no explanation of purpose, default value, or allowed range. The agent has no context to set the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (JEPA inference runs), and the word 'recent' implies a temporal scope. It distinguishes the tool from get_inference_run (single run) and list_inference_schedules (schedules, not runs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_inference_run for details, list_inference_schedules for schedules). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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