list_test_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists test runs and supports filtering, but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, sorting, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of objects, JSON structure). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List RAMP test runs') and adds filtering details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and capabilities, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with full coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or error conditions. For a read-only tool in this context, it meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more complete.

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 100%, with both parameters ('date' and 'sensor') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by date or sensor name, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., date format details or sensor name examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('RAMP test runs from the results directory'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'start_ramp_test' or 'stop_ramp_test' by focusing on listing rather than controlling tests, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_baselines' or 'list_datasources' in terms of domain context.

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 implies usage by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by date or sensor name'), which suggests when to use this tool for retrieving test runs with specific criteria. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_test_result' or 'summarize_run', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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