list_runs

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by instructing the agent to follow next_cursor without changing filters, which is an important pagination invariant. This is genuinely useful context for correct use.

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 very concise, with no filler or redundant statements. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Discover a filtered run cohort') and then adds the key pagination caveat in a compact second clause. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the rich input schema, strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or basic safety. It covers the main non-obvious context: pagination with stable filters. It could be more complete by pointing to get_run for single-run needs, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears a heavier burden. It does add some parameter meaning: 'filtered' implies the filter parameter, and next_cursor references the cursor parameter. However, it does not mention the required limit parameter or explain how filters should be combined, leaving a gap in parameter guidance.

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 relatively specific action: discovering a filtered cohort of runs, which aligns with the tool name list_runs. It clearly refers to multiple runs (cohort) as opposed to a single run, which helps distinguish from get_run. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, missing the strongest possible clarity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a filtered set of runs and want to page through them. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_run, so it lacks exclusions. The pagination instruction 'follow next_cursor without changing filters' is useful operational guidance.

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