list grpo runs

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: ledger-true spend figures, newest-first ordering, 50-run cap, outcome only fetched for the 10 newest non-ACTIVE runs, feature-flag 404 behavior, and OWNER/ADMIN permission requirement. This goes well beyond annotation coverage.

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 long but dense, and every section earns its place: purpose, endpoint, response shape, ordering, limits, permissions, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary use case. Slightly verbose, but justified by the absence of an output schema to document the response.

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 no output schema, the description fully documents the JSON response shape, field semantics, ordering, limits, and caveats. It also covers auth, feature-flag failure, and ledger accuracy. An agent has everything needed to invoke the endpoint and interpret results correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance and instead documents the fixed request scope and response behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless endpoint.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists the workspace's online-RL (GRPO) training runs. It also clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_grpo_run, start_grpo_run, and stop_grpo_run by framing this as the monitoring/list operation.

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 states when to use the tool: to monitor training and decide whether to start another run. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-vs-single-run distinction is clear enough given the sibling names and the stated purpose.

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