list_build_runs

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

Description reveals automatic pagination and limit control, which are behavioral. However, it omits read-only nature (no annotations) and other traits like ordering, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and key behaviors. No superfluous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers listing, filtering, pagination, and limit. However, it lacks order details, result structure, and prerequisites, so it's not fully complete for a 3-parameter 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?

Description explains the status parameter as filtering by outcome and the limit parameter as capping results, adding meaning beyond the schema (which only documents limit's range/default). This complements the 33% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists build runs for a workflow, with optional filtering by outcome. The verb 'list' and resource 'build runs' provide clear purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like get_build_issues or get_build_logs.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It mentions filtering and pagination but doesn't contrast with sibling tools or specify prerequisites (e.g., workflow exists).

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