get_executed_workflows

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

The description explains the query behavior based on parameters and session scoping. It does not disclose potential error conditions, data freshness, or permissions, which would be helpful since no annotations are provided.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently covers the core behavior.

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?

The description lacks detail on the return structure (record fields) and does not differentiate sufficiently from other retrieval tools like 'get_saved_search_details'. Without an output schema, more information is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for id and workflow_id but only implicitly mentions pagination without defining limit and offset explicitly. The schema's defaults are not explained.

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 it retrieves executed workflows for the current session, specifying different behaviors based on parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' by focusing on executed workflows rather than definitions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: id for single record, workflow_id for filtering, and none for paginated list. However, it does not compare against alternative sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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