invariance_workflow_observability_executions

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned dimensions (status, stale flag, health, reasons, evidence mix, cost/tokens), going beyond the annotation alone.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the operation, the target resource, and the key returned fields in a compact, scannable format.

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 simple, one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the parameter usage implied by the schema, and the main return dimensions. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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% and the only parameter, workflow_key, already includes a concrete example ('support.escalation') in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('per-execution health for a workflow') and enumerates the included data fields. This makes it easy to distinguish from workflow-level siblings like invariance_workflow_observability_list or invariance_workflow_observability_get.

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 clearly implies this tool is for per-execution health details rather than workflow-level or monitor-level observability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it.

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