run_describe_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: offline operation, the eight-per-call batch limit, and an explicit refusal boundary (save, render, plug-in insertion, and Playlist clips are refused), which helps the agent avoid unsupported requests.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then coverage/limits. Two tight paragraphs with no filler; the refusal clause is embedded efficiently rather than given its own sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers scope, ordering relative to run_execute/run_validate/run_continue, batch size, and operation coverage categories, which is complete for a discovery tool.

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% and the schema itself documents the omit behavior and maxItems. The description restates the batch cap and the 'omit to list all' behavior, adding little semantic meaning beyond what the enum list and schema description already provide. 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 and resource: 'List Production Run operations and return exact schemas for the ones named.' This is distinct from siblings like run_execute, run_validate, and run_continue, which the description explicitly contrasts against as consumers of this output.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'call this first with the operations you will use (up to eight per call).' It names the sibling tools whose plan schemas lack field detail and explains why this call must precede them, leaving nothing to inference.

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