List Workflow Activity Histories

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is consistent and slightly extends the behavioral understanding, but does not significantly exceed what annotations convey.

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 concise with a few sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes endpoint info and required parameters. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return type (paginated JSON array of Workflows) and includes pagination metadata. It also states required parameters and pagination control. It is fairly complete, though it could detail the array structure more explicitly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description reiterates required parameters and pagination, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'Return a list of activities performed for a workflow instance', uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_activity_history' and 'show_workflow_activity_history' by specifying it is a list operation.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to enumerate Workflows when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the usage intent is clear and helpful.

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