list_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields (execution id, status, timestamps) but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'nextToken' parameter, or error conditions. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential return information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth needs) and usage guidelines. With no output schema, it should ideally describe the response format more thoroughly, but it does state what's returned in a high-level way.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'status' filtering with 'limit'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent executions for a workflow'), and specifies what information is returned. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_execution' (which retrieves a single execution) and 'retry_execution' (which performs an action). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_workflows' or 'list_snapshots' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_execution' for detailed views or 'list_workflows' for broader listings. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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