List automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful domain semantics (approval workflow, scheduled publishing) that help interpret results, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether drafts/active/completed automations are all returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and then the concept definition. The opening fragment is telegraphic but nothing is wasted; the definition sentence earns its place by clarifying the object being listed.

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 zero-required-param read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what an automation is but not what a listing returns (fields, filters, empty-state behavior). Adequate for a simple list, but an agent cannot predict result shape from the description alone.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains workspaceId and its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (automations) and scoped it to the workspace, and the second sentence gives a precise definition of what an automation actually is — a planned run of posts over a date range with human approval then scheduled publishing. It does not explicitly contrast with the single-item sibling get_automation, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_automation (single item) or list_posts. The workspace scoping is implicitly handled by the optional workspaceId param, but no usage context or exclusions are provided.

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