execution_list

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 indicates a read-only listing operation via the verb 'List' and discloses that the output is a summary of past records, which is useful context. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or other potential behaviors, so it is not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb. It is exceptionally concise with no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of information. It clearly states what it does but is vague about the contents of the summary, ordering, or limits. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves 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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The word 'summary' hints at the output, but with no parameters to clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 lists a summary of all past execution records, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('execution records'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_list and schedule_list, which handle different entity types. This is a non-tautological and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies use for viewing execution history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, though the sibling context suggests differentiation by entity. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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