list_workflow_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions showing history, status, and timing, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, pagination behavior, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient.

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 short, but it is under-specified. It could be more concise if it were complete, but brevity at the expense of necessary detail is not a strength. A score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy.

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 lack of output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination limits, or typical usage. It does not, leaving significant gaps.

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%. The description does not explain what workflow_id, page_size, or page_number mean or how they affect the results. This leaves agents with no guidance on parameter usage.

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 lists execution instances for a Datadog workflow, and it mentions the key data shown: run history, status, and timing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows (which lists workflows themselves).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on filtering or prerequisites. The description does not help an agent decide when to choose this tool over others.

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