turnsignal_recent_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses sort order ('newest first'), the exact fields returned (verdict, status, branch, commit, counts, run id), and the scope restriction to 'this project'. That is substantive behavioral context for a list tool, though pagination/limit behavior is left unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what comes back and in what order, the second states the usage. Every clause 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, and the absence of annotations is partly offset by the ordering and scope notes. However, it omits the filtering semantics of 'branch' and the cap behavior of 'limit', leaving an agent to guess at invocation details.

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 schema only documents 'branch' (50% coverage), and the description says nothing about either parameter – it never mentions that 'branch' filters results or that 'limit' caps the count. Listing 'branch' among returned fields could even mislead an agent into thinking it isn't also a filter.

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 ('Recent CI runs of this project') and even enumerates the fields returned plus the sort order, which is more than most list tools do. It doesn't name a sibling, but 'find a run to inspect' implicitly distinguishes it from turnsignal_run.

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?

'Use it to find a run to inspect' gives a clear selection context and quietly points at turnsignal_run as the follow-up tool. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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