ghidriff_list_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state there are no side effects, whether permissions are needed, or how directory scanning behaves. It also doesn't mention output ordering or any constraints.

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 clear sentence with no filler. The core action and sources are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed and from where. It doesn't address edge cases like duplicate artifacts or recursive scanning, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are not critical for correct invocation.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that the directory parameter provides an alternate source of artifacts ('or a given directory'), which adds a bit of context beyond the schema's 'also scan this directory', but doesn't meaningfully extend parameter understanding.

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 action (list) and resource (diff outputs on disk), and identifies two sources: run history or a given directory. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghidriff_jobs or ghidriff_read_report by focusing on diff artifacts on disk, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghidriff_jobs or ghidriff_job_result. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances an agent should select it.

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