List job runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by characterizing the tool as a 'pull-based monitoring path' and explaining that failed_only is a shortcut for status=FAILED. It does not contradict annotations, and it does not need to restate safety hints.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation details. It is concise yet informative.

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 9 optional parameters but a 100% schema description and an output schema, the description covers all major filter dimensions ('job, status, trigger, environment, and/or time window') and gives a real usage scenario. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description elevates this by giving practical meaning to failed_only (answers 'has anything failed?') and job (shows one job's history), which helps an agent choose filters correctly beyond the schema's literal parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and states the exact resource ('runs') plus the filter dimensions (job, status, trigger, environment, time window). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run by focusing on listing/filtering rather than retrieving a single 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?

The description explicitly frames the 'pull-based monitoring path' with failed_only=true or status=FAILED for checking failures, and job=<id> for a single job's history. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as referencing get_run for individual run details.

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