wafle_agents_runs_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds value by disclosing the response row fields (status, tokens, cost_cents, duration_ms) and confirming pagination/status filtering behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys purpose, key filtering, and output fields.

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?

The description gives a good overview of the response row contents and pagination/filtering, but does not specify the list response shape (e.g., array or object with pagination metadata). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a readOnlyHint, this is adequate though not fully complete.

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 only 40% (slug and agent_slug have descriptions). The description adds context for status and pagination but does not explicitly explain page and per_page parameters beyond the word 'paginated'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves room for more detail.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'runs for an agent', distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_runs_get (single run) and wafle_agents_runs_approve/reject (actions). It also specifies pagination and status filtering, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing runs for an agent) and implies its role alongside other run-related tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since there is no competing 'list' tool, the usage context is sufficient.

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