list_automation_instances

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses the return envelope {total, offset, has_more, items} despite no output schema, plus default/max page size and the server-side nature of `contains`. It omits auth scope and ordering of returned items, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return shape and filter caveat; every sentence carries information. The 'CVE id or product name for vulnerabilities' example is slightly off-topic for an automation-runs listing but is small overhead.

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?

For a 4-parameter list tool with no output schema and bare annotations, the description supplies the missing return structure, pagination contract, and filter semantics. It stops short of describing the item fields or ordering, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for most parameters: it gives limit default 20 and a max of 200 that the schema lacks, explains `contains` as a server-side text filter over item fields with concrete examples, and ties offset/total to paging. Only org_id is left to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List automation runs (instances) in an organization') and disambiguates the 'instances' naming with the 'runs' gloss, which helps separate it from the sibling list_automation_schedules. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling to contrast against.

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?

Provides an operational tip ('check `total` before paging through everything') that implies a usage pattern, but never states when to choose this tool over list_automation_schedules or how it relates to stop_automation_instance. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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