runs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation and adds 'durable' and 'recent' as filters, but it does not describe side effects, ordering, pagination, or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some behavior implicit.

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?

One sentence front-loads the operation and includes the purpose. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the recency/durability scope, and the intended use. It could briefly explain how run IDs connect to sibling tools, but this is not critical.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, but it does not mention it. The parameter's title and default value make its basic meaning inferable, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List recent durable runs' and attaches a clear purpose, 'so an agent can recover their run IDs.' It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as status or result.

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 phrase 'so an agent can recover their run IDs' provides a concrete usage context: agents that need to retrieve run IDs should call this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the single optional parameter and list purpose make the appropriate situation clear.

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