list_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds two things beyond them: a non-obvious pagination behavioral quirk, and a prompt-injection warning that returned training content is untrusted data — both valuable, non-structured behavioral disclosures.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the pagination and safety caveats follow in logical order. Nothing is wasted, though it is slightly terse for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers search semantics, pagination behavior, and data-trust safety, which is a solid core. But it omits any meaning for most filter parameters (state, entity, project) and says nothing about the return shape, leaving real gaps for a moderately complex list tool.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies one of them ('search' matches display name, run name, group, or tags). state, entity, project, limit, and offset are left with no semantic explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List/filter accessible runs') that an agent can distinguish from get_run, diagnose_run, and compare_runs by the resource alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the scope ('accessible runs') is clear.

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?

Provides a genuine usage rule for pagination ('continue even when a filtered page is empty and next_offset exists'), which is exactly the kind of trap-following guidance that helps an agent. However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for list_runs versus get_run or compare_runs, leaving the sibling-routing decision implicit.

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