list_executions

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description adds little beyond that. However, it claims a 'date' filter that is not supported by the schema, which is a misleading behavioral disclosure. It also does not mention pagination via cursor or the includeData behavior, despite these being important for setting expectations.

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 that is concise and easy to parse. While it earns points for brevity, the inclusion of the erroneous 'date' reference is a structural inefficiency that prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior or the warning that includeData produces large responses, both of which are relevant to usage. The false 'date' claim also undermines completeness. Most necessary context is available in the schema, but the description could do more to tie it together.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds a non-existent 'date' filter, which could mislead an agent into looking for a parameter that does not exist. It also only restates workflowId and status without adding semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it lists workflow executions with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from get_execution and list_workflows. However, it inaccurately mentions filtering by 'date' when no date parameter exists in the schema, which detracts from precision.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_execution. The name and phrasing imply it is for listing multiple executions, but this is not stated explicitly, leaving room for ambiguity.

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