List live runs for an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), endpoint path, and authorization class ('board_or_agent'). This provides additional context beyond annotations but does not disclose other behavioral traits like 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 very concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and directly relevant. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds technical details. No unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and only one parameter, the description is adequate. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the issue must exist) and does not mention return format or pagination. The annotations cover safety, so the tool is usable but not fully comprehensive.

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 1 parameter (path.issueId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of the issueId parameter beyond implying it identifies an issue. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it lists live runs for a specific issue with verb 'list' and resource 'live runs'. The title reinforces this. It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'pc_get_issues_by_id_runs'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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