postfader_list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifically addresses the post-restart scenario and explicitly states that no operations are executed. This goes beyond what annotations provide by clarifying the tool's non-executing nature.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Find recent runs') and adds the critical context ('after an MCP restart', 'without executing any operations'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and a full output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the key scenario (post-restart) and the non-executing nature. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what 'recent runs' means in terms of ordering or time window, but the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('recent runs after an MCP restart'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like postfader_get_run or postfader_validate_run, but the 'after an MCP restart' context and 'without executing any operations' qualifier give it a distinct identity.

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 implies when to use this tool: after an MCP restart, when you need to see recent runs without executing operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is reasonably clear. The sibling list includes postfader_get_run and postfader_validate_run, which could be alternatives, but the description doesn't mention them.

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