list_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes resolution and defaults but does not cover error handling (e.g., missing directory) or performance implications. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured in a Google-style docstring, front-loading the purpose. It is clear but slightly verbose given the parameter details could be more terse; still efficient overall.

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?

The description covers key behaviors for a list tool: resolution, limits, offset. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It does not discuss pagination or empty results, but this is acceptable for a straightforward listing function.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and default resolution logic (e.g., log_dir resolves via env vars, limit defaults to MCP_ROS2_LOGS_MAX_RESULTS). This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 available ROS2 log runs with summary info,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_summary_tool and list_bag_topics by focusing on listing 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?

The description explains the resolution logic for log_dir when not provided, including environment variables and defaults. It also specifies default values for limit and offset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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