List Workflow Instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (page/per_page, pagination metadata) and filtering capabilities, which go beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently structured with multiple sentences covering purpose, usage, filtering reference, pagination guidance, and API info. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value.

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 explains the return type ('paginated JSON array of Workflows') and mentions pagination metadata. It covers required parameters and filtering, but could further clarify what a 'workflow instance' is relative to a 'workflow'.

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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description mentions required parameters and links to filter documentation, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of filter semantics).

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 workflow instances') and the resource ('for a workflow'). It also explains the purpose: enumerate workflows for paginated overview, find IDs, or filter. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_instances_company' or 'list_workflow_instances_project', leaving scope ambiguity.

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 specific use cases: when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters. It also links to filter documentation. However, it lacks exclusions or alternative tool guidance (e.g., when to use sibling tools instead).

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