List runs for a routine

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which convey safety and idempotency. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which are useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention pagination or response format, but output schema exists to cover that.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides the HTTP endpoint and authorization. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (listing runs) and the existence of an output schema, the description still lacks important context such as what information the runs contain, typical use cases, pagination, or ordering. The minimal information leaves the agent with unanswered questions about how to interpret the results.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, the description does not mention the required parameter (the routine ID) at all. The agent must deduce that the 'id' in the path is the routine identifier from the tool name and context. This lack of explanation is a significant gap.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List runs for a routine'. The verb 'list' and resource 'runs' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_post_routines_by_id_run (which creates a run) and pc_get_routines_by_id (which gets the routine itself). However, it does not elaborate on what 'runs' are, which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list all runs vs. retrieve a specific run or create a new run. There is no mention of prerequisites, common filters, or data retrieval patterns. The agent must infer usage from context.

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