qb_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering ('most recent first') and hints at the tool being read-only by mentioning inspection and revert. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are gaps for a listing tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the benefit, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It explains the ordering and purpose. However, it could mention that the 'limit' parameter controls the number of results, but since the schema has a default, this is a minor omission.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema alone. The description only adds context about ordering and purpose, not parameter details.

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 ('lists') and resource ('recent run logs'), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'qb_revert_run' by focusing on listing rather than reverting, and explains the use case of finding a run without knowing the exact filename.

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('find a run to inspect or revert') implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other listing tools like 'qb_query_transactions', which could filter runs more specifically.

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