List runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing runs) and the output fields (status, duration), but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if there are any side effects. Since it is a list operation, safety is implied, but a clearer nod to non-destructiveness would earn a higher score.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful output details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, scope, and returned fields. It could be slightly richer by mentioning ordering or that it includes currently running runs, but the description is complete enough for this complexity level.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the guidelines, the baseline is 4 because no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('every run of this MCP session'), and it specifies what info is returned (status and duration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_status or opencode_result, which focus on different aspects.

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 the tool is for retrieving run history of the current MCP session, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but for a simple 0-parameter listing tool, the context is adequate.

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