Tower runbook_executions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful data-handling guidance: evidence is untrusted, record IDs should be cited, and uncertainty should be preserved. However, it does not describe what is returned, whether results are paginated, or what authentication is required beyond the word "Authenticated."

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 short and avoids bloat, but the first sentence is a tautological restatement of the name/title rather than a purpose statement. The evidence-handling guidance is useful but not organized around what the tool does.

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 read-only one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how incident_id relates to runbook executions. It instead leaves the sole parameter unexplained and offers no return-value context, though the readOnlyHint reduces the safety-disclosure burden.

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 schema has one required parameter, incident_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions incident_id or explains how it scopes the executions returned. Because schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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's first sentence, "Authenticated Control Tower runbook_executions," largely restates the tool name and title rather than stating a specific action such as listing or retrieving runbook executions for an incident. It does not distinguish this plural execution tool from sibling tools like tower.runbook_execution, tower.runbooks, or tower.runbook_preview.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus tower.runbook_preview, tower.runbook_execute, tower.runbook_cancel, tower.runbook_verify, or the singular tower.runbook_execution. The line about human approval using Tower HTTP/CLI separately provides only a narrow exclusion, not general when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing.

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