Workflow Executions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral details: 'get' returns full detail including nodeExecutions, state, errorInfo, and artifact URLs; it advises polling until artifact URLs are available. This enhances transparency.

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 concise: two clear sentences plus a short tip. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then dives into details. Every sentence provides useful information, with no redundancy or excessive length.

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 the comprehensive schema, annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: two actions with their parameters, and a usage tip. It does not explain pagination further, but the schema already describes page and pageSize. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by action (e.g., '[list]' and '[get]' prefixes) in the schema descriptions, and in the free text it clarifies which parameters apply to each action. This improves understanding beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose: 'Look up workflow executions' and lists the types of executions (check_app_in_browser, trigger_crawl, test-suite runs). It differentiates between 'get' and 'list' actions, providing specific verb+resource semantics. No confusion with sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use 'get' vs 'list' by specifying the parameters for each action. It also includes a practical tip about polling after a fresh check_app_in_browser run. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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