List isolated AGY runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the read-only and repeat-safe aspects of listing runs. The description adds contextual details like 'recent' and 'isolated', but it does not describe return values or potential side effects; the annotation coverage makes this acceptable for a read-only operation.

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?

A single, compact sentence immediately describes the tool's action and scope; no filler or repetition with the name or schema.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). However, the description omits the return shape and any pagination/defaulting details. Since the available annotations are minimal and the metadata describes a 'recent isolated runs' but not what the output list contains, completeness is only moderately handled.

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?

Input schema provides descriptions for only 1 of 2 parameters (project_root) and leaves the limit parameter without additional semantics beyond its type/default/min/max. With 50% schema coverage, a couple of extra details about the project_root path or limit behavior would have helped, but the schema supplies the core constraints.

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 a specific action ('list'), a specific resource ('isolated execution runs'), and a scope ('for one project'). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling session-list tools, but 'runs' vs 'sessions' narrows the operation enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 a clear context — a user who wants recent isolated runs in a project — and the term 'isolated runs' differentiates from session-oriented siblings without explicitly listing exclusions.

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