run_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only; executes nothing' largely restates structured data. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context: results are local to this computer and returned newest-first. That is useful but thin, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the what/ordering claim front-loaded and the usage condition second. Nothing is redundant.

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 not be explained, and the description already points at the key field (run_id). It covers purpose, ordering, locality and usage; only minor gaps remain (e.g. what 'recent' means relative to the limit cap).

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?

Only one parameter (limit) and the schema documents it fully with default, min and max, so coverage is 100%. The description says nothing about limit or truncation behavior, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 (Production Runs saved on this computer) plus an ordering guarantee (newest first), which is scope detail an agent can act on. It also names the sibling tools (run_get, run_continue) that consume the output, making it easy to distinguish from run_get/run_describe_operations.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('after an MCP restart') and the downstream purpose ('find a run_id for run_get or run_continue'). That is a concrete when-to-use plus named alternatives, not implied guidance.

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