ds_list_process_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that RUNNING instances with an empty task list are normal, explains next_action hints, and describes filtering behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe output structure, though 'List' strongly implies a safe read.

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 well-structured with sections for version notes, troubleshooting, and arguments. It is slightly verbose due to version history notes, but every section contributes to understanding or usage. Front-loaded purpose sentence is clear, and the troubleshooting flow is practically useful.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a good amount of context: how to filter, what to do next after getting instances, and expected behavior for states. It lacks explicit return object details and pagination specifics beyond page_size, but for a list tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: project_name is identified, workflow_code has clear default/vs specific behavior, state enumerates valid values, and page_size is defined. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 that the tool "List process instances" with filters by workflow_code and state, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ds_list_task_instances. It even notes a merged predecessor, adding historical context without confusion.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get process instances, and when to use ds_list_task_instances for deeper execution details. It also clarifies workflow_code=0 default behavior, which helps select the right invocation.

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