List runs for an issue

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and the exact API endpoint, which gives some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error handling, pagination, or rate limits.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and include the HTTP operation and authorization. Every sentence adds value, though it omits parameter details. It is efficient but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 a nested input schema and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'runs' are, how the output is structured, or any behaviors like filtering or ordering. The output schema exists but the description should clarify the tool's role among many siblings.

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 explain the parameters. It does not describe the 'path' object or the 'id' field. The tool name and title imply the 'id' is an issue ID, but the description provides no explicit documentation, relying solely on the schema structure.

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 clearly states 'List runs for an issue', which is a specific verb and resource. The tool name includes 'issues_by_id', so the purpose is evident. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other list-runs tools like pc_get_routines_by_id_runs, but the 'for an issue' wording provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not specify context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar tools.

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