List Workflow Permanent Logs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating the response format ('paginated JSON array of Workflows'), pagination control ('Use page and per_page'), and inclusion of pagination metadata. No contradiction with 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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers filtering, use cases, pagination, required parameters, and API details. It is concise and informative, though slightly dense. Could be more structured but remains effective.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and schema covering all parameters, the description adds sufficient context: pagination behavior, required parameters, and endpoint identification. It lacks output schema but compensates by describing the return format, making the tool complete for a list operation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description merely reiterates required parameters and mentions filtering support, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Return a list of workflow permanent logs' and provides multiple use cases (enumerate Workflows, paginated overview, find IDs, filter by query parameters), making the tool's purpose specific and actionable. It implicitly differentiates from sibling 'list_workflow_permanent_logs_company' by being scoped to project.

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 explicitly advises 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 references external documentation for filtering. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like the company-level endpoint.

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