runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens on invalid projects. The schema includes cursor parameters (first, after, last, before, page_size, max_pages), but the description omits any behavioral context like automatic pagination or cursor-based pagination.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal but combined with the schema is adequate. However, it lacks context on pagination behavior and does not differentiate from sibling tool 'run'. Output schema exists to describe return values.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds only 'with filtering', which is vague and does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists analysis runs for a DeepSource project with filtering. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (analysis runs), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run' (likely single run retrieval) and 'project_issues'.

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?

Description implies usage for listing filtered runs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Context is clear, but no exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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