list_flow_executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'recent' and the presence of status fields, but does not elaborate on ordering, pagination, or the full set of statuses (omits 'cancelled'). 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the verb, resource, and key detail about statuses, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 simple list tool with complete schema and good annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on result ordering, output structure, and the full status set, but the schema and annotations cover the core needs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds confusion by listing statuses as 'completed, error, running' while the schema says 'complete, error, cancelled' and notes it's a filter. This introduces inconsistency and adds no value beyond 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 clearly identifies the tool as listing executions of a flow, with 'recent' adding a time dimension and statuses indicated. It distinguishes from 'get_flow_execution' through the plural 'executions' and 'list' vs 'get', though it does not explicitly mention that sibling.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_flow_execution or list_flows. The only implicit context is the required flow_sys_id parameter, but no explicit context or exclusion is given.

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