Recent Spoofzy runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing beyond structured data. The valuable addition is content-level disclosure that results aggregate session runs (with their saved files), Cloud jobs, and Studio runs; however, ordering, recency window, and truncation behavior are not described.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short qualifier; the scope enumeration is placed before the read-only note. The final 'Read-only.' duplicates the annotation and could be dropped, but it is a minor cost.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential missing piece — what gets aggregated into the list. Only the recency/ordering semantics and how limit interacts with multiple sources are left unstated.

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% — the single limit parameter has its own description with default and bounds (1-50). The description adds no meaning beyond that, such as whether limit applies per source or across the combined list, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Spoofzy runs) and enumerates the three sources covered: this session's runs, Cloud jobs, and Studio runs. That scope distinguishes it from spoofzy_list_saved_originals and spoofzy_list_workflows, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recent runs' — an agent can infer this is the discovery/list entry point — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus spoofzy_get_run for details or spoofzy_list_workflows for workflow definitions. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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