list_query_executions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that results are recent and paginated via next_token, but not ordering, what 'recent' means, whether work_group filters or is required, or any side-effect/read-only disclosure. This is somewhat more than the name alone but still minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a terse Args listing. There is no filler or repetition of schema titles, though the Arg entries could have been integrated with usage guidance for higher 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 simple list tool with an output schema and three optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and covers all parameters. It still omits pagination mechanics, ordering, and the meaning of omitting work_group or max_results, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to call it repeatedly.

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%, and the Args section compensates by giving a one-line meaning for each parameter: work_group filters, max_results limits count, next_token handles pagination. This is useful but shallow; it does not document constraints, defaults, or behavior when parameters are omitted, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recent query executions') and is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as get_query_execution and list_named_queries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its scope from closely related get/start tools, and 'recent' is not defined.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_query_execution or get_query_results; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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