get_completed_workflows_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: that IDs must be numeric strings (not names) and that user ID lookup is unsupported. This goes beyond the schema by flagging a missing directory report. However, it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or side effects, which are less critical for a read-only report.

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: a clear purpose statement followed by an imperative usage note. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the core function.

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?

The description covers the purpose and key constraint (numeric IDs) but lacks details about output format, default columns, or what the 'columns' parameter controls. For a complex report tool with no output schema, more context about the result structure would improve completeness.

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 value by reinforcing the numeric string requirement and alerting about the absent user directory report, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps agents avoid common errors.

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 ('Returns a report') and resource ('completed workflows (processes)') with filtering capability, clearly distinguishing it from sibling reports like get_in_progress_workflows_report or get_cancelled_workflows_report.

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 clear usage guidance by emphasizing that all ID parameters must be numeric strings and directing users to directory reports for ID lookups. It also notes that assigned_user expects numeric IDs and no directory exists for users. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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