list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: results come from on-disk runs and are ordered newest first, plus each row carries state and cost. It still omits the read-only nature of the operation, whether results are paginated or truncated, and whether missing run directories are skipped, so it is only partially transparent.

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 sentence with zero filler; the scoping facts (source, ordering, payload) are front-loaded and every word carries information. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the description leaves the only parameter unexplained, gives no indication that the call is a safe read, and does not help the agent choose between this and sibling listing/inspection tools such as run_status or list_chains.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (1-100) is never mentioned in the description. 'Newest first' hints at ordering but says nothing about how limit truncates the result set, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 phrase 'Runs on disk, newest first, with state and cost' clearly identifies the resource (runs), the ordering, and the payload, and the verb is unambiguous from the name 'list_runs'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as run_status (single run) or list_chains (chain-level listing), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or authorization note, and no named alternative such as run_status for inspecting a single run. The agent is left to infer that this is the enumeration entry point purely from the name.

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