get_workflow_instances_v2_2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by an authentication note. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It mentions an authentication requirement but lacks details on what 'specific execution' entails, how to identify it, or what the return value includes. For a tool that likely retrieves workflow data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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: 'Get a specific execution of a given workflow.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific execution of a given workflow'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_instances_v2' or 'get_workflow', which might be similar, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 mentions an API requirement but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.

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