list_automations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It covers purpose and a minor nuance, but omits behavioral traits like pagination details, rate limits, authentication requirements, ordering, or error handling. Given no annotation safety net, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and output fields, the second adds a valuable detail. Efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is adequate but lacks expected completeness for a list tool: it doesn't describe the return structure (beyond 'status + run counters'), pagination behavior, sorting, or error conditions. The pending approval detail is helpful but not sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a nuance about draft automations with pendingApproval, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'automations (trigger→steps programs)', and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_automation or create_automation. It also specifies returned fields (status + run counters) and filtering options, plus a special case (pending approval).

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 browsing automations with status filtering, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., 'use get_automation for a single automation'). The context suggests its role among siblings, but no exclusions are stated.

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