unfour.flow.list_runs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful payload context: it returns lightweight FlowRunSummary records and avoids loading full run details. It does not mention pagination behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, even though other dimensions are under-specified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But with four undocumented input parameters and no mention of required flowId, scoping, or pagination, the description is not complete enough to guide invocation beyond the bare schema.

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?

The tool has four parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions no parameter names, required flowId, workspace scoping, limit, or cursor, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ("Read"), resource ("FlowRunSummary history"), and scope ("without loading run details"). It implies contrast with detail-loading siblings like unfour.flow.get_run, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

"Lightweight ... without loading run details" implies this tool should be used when summary-only history is sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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