List contributed runs

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: results are anonymous contributions from other users, no account is required, and 'newest first' ordering is disclosed. It does not state rate limits or result volume limits beyond the schema's own default.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the resource and scope lead, followed by the use case, the auth note, and the accepted inputs. Slightly clipped but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (actual vs planned length, conditions), which is what an agent needs to decide relevance. Combined with the schema's parameter docs and annotations, it is complete enough, with only pagination/result-volume behavior left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by presenting `program` and `program_hash` as interchangeable alternatives ('Takes program or program_hash'), clarifying an either/or relationship the schema itself does not state. It adds no format detail for the hash beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list contributed/anonymous runs) plus the scope constraint of 'one exact program version' and what each record contains (actual vs planned length, conditions). The 'other people contributed' framing implicitly separates it from list_runs/list_my_programs, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'For "how long does this really take?"' implies the intended use case (real-world duration estimation) and 'No account needed' signals availability without auth. However, it never names an alternative such as list_runs for one's own runs or explains when NOT to use this tool, so usage is only implied.

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