show_runs_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but does well by disclosing the rich Prefab card format, status badges, and the plain-text fallback return format. It does not mention any side effects or auth, but for a read-only display tool this is sufficient.

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 brief and well-organized: first sentence states purpose, second provides an alternative, and a 'Return Format' section clarifies output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is largely complete for a simple tool: it gives purpose, alternative, and return format. The only gap is the unmentioned 'limit' parameter, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the parameter's self-descriptive name.

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 input schema has one param 'limit' with a default but no description, and the description does not mention it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate. The parameter name is somewhat intuitive, but the agent is left guessing about its exact semantics.

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 'Show recent agent runs as a rich Prefab card' with a specific verb, resource, and output format, effectively distinguishing it from the sibling opencode_runs tool. It also explicitly names the alternative for raw data, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use the plain opencode_runs(action="list") tool when you need raw data instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative, covering the primary decision point.

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