List Evergreen runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of value by characterizing the returned data as 'generated occurrences and evaluation outcomes,' but omits pagination, ordering, or history-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of what leaves the gaps elsewhere.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the caller gets back, and 'generated occurrences and evaluation outcomes' is too vague to do so. Combined with the undocumented parameter, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (queueId) has no type/format description anywhere. The phrase 'for a queue' only loosely implies queueId and provides no syntax or sourcing guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ('List') and resource ('generated occurrences and evaluation outcomes for a queue'), but the terminology drifts from the tool name's 'runs' to 'occurrences and evaluation outcomes,' leaving the exact object ambiguous. It is enough to guess intent but does not crisply distinguish it from siblings like list_job_runs or preview_evergreen_queue.

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 exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling list/get tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for a queue's run history.

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