list_runs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, local read operation. The description adds minor context that it lists recent records, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, sorting order, or what 'recent' means—limitations that matter for a list tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no waste, but it is not overly front-loaded or structured—it simply states the purpose without additional details.

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?

Given the tool lists runs, an agent needs to know the default limit, whether results are paginated, and how 'recent' is defined. The description provides none of this, and with no output schema, it leaves significant gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter (limit) is documented only by its type and constraints (integer, 1-50) without explanatory text. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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 states a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (最近的协作运行记录/recent collaborative run records), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_run_status, which also concerns runs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_run_status for specific runs. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions for its use.

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