copy_job_list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'all run instances' scope but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or returned fields, which remains a gap for a list 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?

A single focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and resource, earning every word.

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, two-parameter read-only tool, the description plus schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is return-value details, but no output schema exists to make that a hard requirement.

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 100%, with descriptions for workspaceId and copyJobId. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('run instances for a copy job'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like copy_job_get_run_status or copy_job_list, though 'run instances' helps narrow the meaning.

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 intended use is implied by 'List all run instances for a copy job' – an agent can infer when to call it. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer copy_job_get_run_status for a single run or copy_job_list for the jobs themselves.

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