list_job_runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's only added value is the provenance caveat 'EXPERIMENTAL — from an unverified example request', which is genuinely useful risk context. Beyond that it says nothing about ordering, pagination behaviour, or what happens when limit/cursor are omitted.

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 short statement with the warning front-loaded and the endpoint immediately after, so nothing is padded. The trailing ellipsis and fragment structure make it feel like a truncated note rather than a finished definition.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no pagination explanation, the definition is too thin for a four-parameter list tool that returns a cursor-paginated collection. The experimental caveat is the only substantive information an agent gains.

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% and none of the four parameters have descriptions. The description maps job_id (path) and project_id (query string) to the endpoint, but leaves limit and cursor entirely unexplained, so pagination semantics are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies the underlying endpoint 'GET /v2/jobs/{id}/runs' which implies retrieving runs belonging to a job, but it never states the purpose in plain language and offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_job_run or create_job_run. An agent must infer the verb 'list' from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the closely related get_job_run (single run) tool that an agent could easily confuse with this one. The only implicit signal is that a job_id is required.

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