prufa_list_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It only discloses 'auth required' but omits read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The list operation is implicitly non-destructive but not confirmed.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core function without fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could incorporate parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete: it does not explain 'recent', default limit, pagination, or ordering. The parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, yet the description does not mention the single parameter 'limit'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's default value, leaving the agent uninformed about its effect or usage.

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 action (List) and resource (recent runs) with scope (in this workspace). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like prufa_get_run (single run) or prufa_list_flows (flows), but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prufa_get_run or prufa_list_flows. There are no when-not contexts or prerequisites mentioned beyond 'auth required'.

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