list_executors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly documents the return structure, including optional fields and possible status values, and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. However, it does not mention side effects, errors, or auth requirements, though these are less critical for a straightforward listing operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The brief explanation of executors, the single parameter, and the detailed return format are all useful and directly relevant, with no filler. Each sentence earns its place and the format is easy to scan.

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 no annotations and a single parameter, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the parameter semantics, return objects in full detail, and provides necessary background on what executors are. It leaves no significant gaps in understanding how to invoke or interpret the result.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with an explicit Args block stating 'application_name (string, required): Name of the DBOS application', giving complete semantic meaning for the sole parameter.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource phrase: 'List executors for an application from DBOS Conductor.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_applications and list_workflows by focusing on executors, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 clear context by explaining that executors are running instances connected to Conductor, which implies when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a simple listing tool the context is sufficient to guide selection.

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