list raft rounds

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

Even with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral context: feature-flag gating (404), required OWNER/ADMIN key (403), empty array as a valid non-error response, 200-round cap, and the meaning of null fields. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose, endpoint, response schema, limits, and error conditions are all present without wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose before the API details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the empty input schema and lack of an output schema, the description fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly. It covers the endpoint, auth scope, response fields with null semantics, max result count, flag gating, and non-error empty behavior. No meaningful gap remains for a zero-parameter read-only list call.

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. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It instead documents the output shape in detail, which is appropriate for this parameterless call.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('self-improvement rejection-sampling fine-tuning rounds') with meaningful scope ('workspace's', 'newest first', 'started from the dashboard'). It also enumerates the data returned, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_fine_tuning_jobs or list_grpo_runs through the explicit 'raft/rounds' resource and endpoint path.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: read-only observability of dashboard-started raft rounds, and explicitly notes there is no public start endpoint. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when one should use them instead, stopping short of the full when/when-not guidance.

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