list_job_runs

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it confirms the operation is read-only, states that secret values are redacted, and describes the returned data as recent records with status and timestamps. This is strong transparency for a simple read tool, though it does not elaborate on ordering or error 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral note (redaction). It then provides sibling routing and parameter details without wasting words. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required inputs, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, the field kinds included, the redaction behavior, the limit parameter, and where to find runnable schedules. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the description's Args section merely repeats the schema's existing limit description. It adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List redacted background job run outcomes.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope (recent schedule/job run records) and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning run_schedule_now and list_schedules for discovering runnable schedules.

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?

It explicitly states the tool's purpose and gives a clear alternative condition: 'Use run_schedule_now or list_schedules to discover runnable schedules.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the siblings to use instead.

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