list_autopilot_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a read operation (implied by 'list'), but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether runs are capped at some maximum, or whether it requires authentication. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is warranted.

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?

One concise sentence with no waste. It front-loads the verb and resource clearly. Could argue it's slightly under-specified, but for a simple list operation the brevity is acceptable.

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 simple list operation with 2 fully-documented parameters and clear sibling differentiation, this is largely adequate. However, the absence of behavior details (pagination semantics, ordering, auth requirements) combined with no annotations and no output schema means the description carries more responsibility than it fulfills. A mention of result structure (status enum values, summary format) 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 coverage is 100%, with both limit and offset parameters described ('Max results (default 20)' and 'Pagination offset'). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles documentation fully, though the description could note default behaviors or relationships between limit/offset.

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 'List past autopilot runs with their status and summary results' clearly states the verb (list), resource (autopilot runs), and returned fields (status, summary results). It distinguishes from siblings like get_autopilot_status (single-run status) and start_autopilot (initiating new runs). Slight gap: doesn't mention ordering (e.g., newest first) which would strengthen 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_autopilot_status and start_autopilot, the description doesn't clarify that this is for historical/aggregate views vs. checking current run status. No exclusions or context provided about prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in), though auth_status/login siblings suggest auth may matter.

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