haops_list_test_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states it returns summaries with counts, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects (though likely read-only). The description is minimal.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose and output, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic idea. However, it lacks explanation of what 'recent' means (time window, ordering) and could benefit from mentioning default sorting or pagination behavior, making it slightly incomplete.

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 schema already documents all parameters (limit, runner, environment, projectSlug). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'List recent test runs for a project' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'Returns run summaries with pass/fail counts' which clarifies the output. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like haops_list_tests (test cases) and haops_report_test_run (creating a run).

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 usage for listing test runs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., haops_list_test_suites, haops_get_test_health) or any when-not situations. It is implied but not elaborated.

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