list_workflows_with_finished_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists workflows with finished jobs and returns a string with details, but lacks critical behavioral info: whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'finished jobs' entails (e.g., success/failure status).

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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by args and returns sections. Efficient with no wasted sentences, though the returns section could be more precise (e.g., format of the string).

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description adds some param semantics but lacks behavioral context. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing usage and transparency details.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'source_type' and 'destination_type' as optional filters. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying they filter by connector types, though it doesn't detail the enum values or filtering logic.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('workflows with finished jobs'), specifying it's via the Unstructured API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workflows' by focusing on workflows with finished jobs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_jobs' which might overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workflows' or 'list_jobs'. The description mentions filtering by source/destination types but doesn't explain when this filtering is beneficial or what happens without filters.

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