list_knowledge_base_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. It states 'List ingestion runs' implying a read operation, but lacks details on behavior like what happens with missing kb_name, rate limits, or pagination type (page vs cursor).

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 extremely concise (6 words) with no filler. Every word is necessary and the structure is front-loaded.

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 tool, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not mention what is returned (e.g., run objects or counts) and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, so the input schema already describes all 3 parameters. The description adds 'with pagination' which hints at page/limit usage but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'ingestion runs for a knowledge base', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_knowledge_bases' (which lists bases) and 'get_knowledge_base_run' (which gets a single run).

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 mentions pagination but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites (e.g., needing kb_name) or context about when listing runs is appropriate.

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