ListWorkflowInstances

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 offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it does), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. The description is completely silent on behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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?

While technically concise (one short phrase), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide any meaningful context that would help an AI agent understand when and how to use this tool. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase doesn't provide enough 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose beyond the obvious, provides no usage context, and offers no behavioral information. While the schema covers parameter documentation well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema information.

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%, with all 10 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '获取工作流实例列表' (Get workflow instance list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListWorkflowInstances' in Chinese. While it correctly identifies the verb ('get/list') and resource ('workflow instances'), it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListWorkflowDefinitions' or 'GetWorkflowInstance', nor does it specify scope or filtering capabilities beyond what the name implies.

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. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'GetWorkflowInstance', 'ListWorkflowDefinitions', 'ListTaskInstances'), but the description offers no context about when this specific list operation is appropriate versus single-instance retrieval or other list operations.

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