list_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the parameter explanations disclose filtering values, the default of 20, and the special -1 behavior. It does not discuss null filter semantics, but that is a minor gap for a simple listing operation.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every line adds value with no fluff.

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 low-complexity list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is listed, what statuses can filter it, and how many results are returned. The only minor ambiguity is that omitting status_filter is not explicitly described as returning all statuses, though the schema default of null makes this inferable.

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 fully compensate, and it does. It gives explicit allowed values for status_filter, explains last_n as the number of most recent runs, states the default 20, and documents -1 for all runs.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('known training runs') along with the included status information. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_run_status.

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 instead of alternatives such as get_run_status, compare_runs, or wait_for_completion. The description explains what the tool does but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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