List Workflow Performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it fetches runs and computes statistics, but does not mention API rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with insufficient data. The description adds some behavioral context (computing stats) but omits other factors like data retention or pagination.

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 two sentences: the first states the function, the second states the use case. No waste, fully front-loaded, concise.

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 it's a computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively conveys purpose and usage. Missing details like output format or edge cases (e.g., no runs found) are not critical given the tool's simplicity. It covers essential aspects for an agent.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches the last N workflow runs and computes job-level timing statistics, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_workflow_config and get_billing_usage by focusing on performance statistics derived from runs.

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 implies usage for performance analysis ('Useful for identifying slow jobs and trends') but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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