list_executors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only enumeration, and the description adds context about what executors are and their possible statuses. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then organized under Args and Returns headings, making it easy to scan. The Returns section is extensive, but it provides field-level semantics that an agent would need if the output schema lacked descriptions. No sentence is purely filler.

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 operation with one required parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge: what the tool does, what argument to provide, and what shape the result takes. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the distinct resource type makes that less critical here.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare property definition. It does so by documenting application_name as '(string, required): Name of the DBOS application,' adding semantic meaning beyond the type and title. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List executors for an application from DBOS Conductor.' It clearly identifies the resource (executors), the scope (per application), and the system (Conductor), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_applications, list_workflows, and list_steps.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to retrieve executors running for a specific DBOS application. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for exclusion, so it stops short of a 5, but the 'for an application' qualifier makes the usage scenario unambiguous.

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