List desktop runs for a session ID, filterable by status, to track operation history.
READ-ONLY: list desktop runs for a session_id (optional status filter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| max_chars | No | Soft JSON size cap for the tool result | |
| max_items | No | Cap items/events/logs arrays (default 40) | |
| session_id | Yes | ||
| summary_only | No | Prefer compact links/failures (default true for analyze) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the read-only nature and the optional status filter, but omits behavior like response format, pagination limits, or how max_chars/max_items affect results. Given the presence of parameters that alter output, this is a significant gap.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. 'READ-ONLY' is prioritized, followed by the purpose and filter. Every word adds value.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not describe the output shape, how the parameters influence results, or how it differs from other list tools. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior or when to select it over siblings.
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 60% (max_chars, max_items, summary_only have descriptions). The description adds meaning for session_id (required scope) and status (optional filter), which are undocumented in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on value formats or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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), the resource (desktop runs), and the scope (session_id), with an optional status filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_ops_desktop_run_get (singular) and yaaif_ambient_runs_list (ambient runs).
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 implies usage for listing desktop runs per session but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative list tools. It relies on the agent inferring context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.