List live runs for a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not disclose pagination, limits, or what constitutes a 'live run'. With annotations, the description provides marginal extra behavioral context.

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 two sentences: one for purpose, one for operation details. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds technical context.

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 an output schema (so return values need not be described), one parameter, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It provides the HTTP method, path, and authorization class. However, it could be more complete by noting potential pagination or clarifying what 'live runs' means in this context. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple list tool.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It includes the path template 'GET /api/companies/{companyId}/live-runs', which clarifies that companyId is a path parameter. However, it does not describe the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints beyond the schema's required string type. This adds some context but not enough to reach a higher score.

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 'List live runs for a company' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It provides the exact HTTP method and path, adding specificity. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_issue_id_live_runs, the companyId parameter implies the scoping difference, so purpose is clear but not perfectly differentiated.

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 includes the HTTP operation and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), giving basic when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., scoping by issue). The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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