show_runs

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining that it renders an interactive MCP app and returns a short text summary alongside the visual view. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action and format are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a usage preference and return-value hint without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. However, it says 'last 14 days' while the schema allows only 7d/30d/90d/1y with a default of 30d, creating a factual mismatch that could mislead an agent into expecting a 14-day window or setting an unsupported range value.

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 100% and the single parameter 'range' has documented enum values and a default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but since the schema carries the full semantic burden, the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Show'), a resource ('running mileage'), a time scope ('last 14 days'), and a presentation format ('inline bar chart'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by saying this tool should be preferred over describing underlying rows in text, clearly distinguishing it from list_runs and similar tools.

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 gives an explicit usage cue: 'When the user asks about this, prefer calling this tool... over describing the underlying rows in text.' This provides clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when a raw list is explicitly requested).

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