appwrite_list_executions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state whether this is read-only, whether results are paginated, time-range limitations, or what data fields are returned. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no behavioral clarity.

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 extremely brief with no redundant sentences, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata rather than descriptive content. While not verbose, it is underweight for the tool's complexity, providing only a single sentence of actual guidance.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the Appwrite-specific query syntax for the 'queries' parameter, pagination patterns, or the relationship between 'site' and 'function_id'.

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%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters. Critical parameters like 'site' (ambiguous: URL? ID?), 'queries' (Appwrite query syntax?), and 'search' (which fields are searchable?) are completely undocumented. Only 'function' is implicitly referenced.

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 tool 'List[s] execution history for a function,' identifying the verb (list) and resource (execution history). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling appwrite_get_execution (which retrieves a single execution) or clarify that this returns multiple records.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like appwrite_get_execution (for single execution details) or appwrite_execute_function (to trigger new executions). It omits prerequisites such as needing a valid function_id from appwrite_list_functions.

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