List Workflow Instances

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavior: it states it returns a JSON array, describes pagination and page-count reporting, and details common failure modes with HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This gives the agent concrete expectations for invoking the tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior/errors, then required parameters and API reference. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the rich operational details (pagination, error handling, filtering) and the API endpoint reference.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states return type (JSON array), pagination behavior, error handling, required parameter, and API source. It also links to filtering docs, covering the main aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds pagination context ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. Required parameters are already in 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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource statement ('Return a list of workflow instances for a workflow') and adds use cases ('discover workflow instances or to look up the id of one'). It distinguishes the listing operation from sibling show/respond/refresh tools by focusing on discovery and id lookup.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this to discover workflow instances or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it') and points to filtering documentation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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