pipeline_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 scoping detail 'for a pipeline' and the breadth of 'all run instances', but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 tool with two required, fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'list all run instances' phrasing, though return format or pagination details would improve completeness.

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%, with both pipelineId and workspaceId already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'run instances' and the scope 'for a pipeline', making it immediately distinct from sibling tools like pipeline_list (which lists pipelines) and pipeline_get (which fetches a single pipeline). An agent can identify what this tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipeline_get_run_status, pipeline_list_schedules, or copy_job_list_runs. The intended use case is only implied by the name and phrasing, not explicitly stated.

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