list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys ordering ('newest first') and returned fields, but leaves 'recent' undefined, gives no default limit, no pagination or rate-limit notes, and no auth requirements for a read tool.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being genuinely complete.

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 2-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should document parameter intent and default behavior. It covers return content and ordering but leaves both parameters and the meaning of 'recent' unexplained.

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 description never mentions the 'limit' or 'experiment' parameters. The only implicit signal is that results are 'recent', vaguely suggesting a default time window, but neither parameter's meaning or bounds is explained.

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?

States a specific resource (runs) and the ordering and content (newest first, with status and headline metrics). It implicitly differs from siblings like get_run and list_experiments by being a list of runs, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative. The word 'recent' hints at a default scope but the description gives no condition that would route an agent to get_run or compare_runs instead.

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