list evals

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: no wallet spend, API-key scope, no pagination/filtering, snake_case conversion, model-id key pass-through, status lifecycle, and frozen criterion snapshots. This is rich disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, ordering, limit, and audience, then moves through the full response shape and ends with critical notes. Despite its length, every sentence carries operational value, especially because there is no output schema to encode the return structure.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of documenting behavior and return values, and it does so comprehensively: response shape, nested run details, statuses, key casing, scope, and read-only/no-spend behavior. Nothing needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description reinforces this by stating there is no filtering or pagination, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('this workspace's eval runs'), ordering and limit ('newest first, most recent 50'), and the kinds of runs included ('comparison, criterion run and screening'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_eval, delete_eval, and compare_evals by enumerating its exact scope.

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 usage context: a customer can see every queued or finished comparison, criterion run, and screening. It also states constraints ('No pagination or filtering: always the 50 newest runs'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as get_eval or compare_evals or state when to prefer them.

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