List workflow runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description correctly reinforces a non-mutating read and adds the return shape (contacts, states, current steps). It does not mention pagination or result limits, which is the main remaining gap for a list endpoint.

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?

Four short, labelled sections (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when) with zero filler, front-loading purpose and routing before the return details. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context plus routing guidance, and annotations cover safety. Only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'id' (Workflow UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (runs/executions of a workflow) and explicitly scopes what is returned: 'which contacts are in it, where they have reached, and which have finished.' The 'Not for' clause names plunk_get_workflow and the boundary between the two, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

'Use when: Checking whether an automation is working, or how many people are partway through it' gives concrete triggering conditions, and the 'Not for' line names the alternative tool (plunk_get_workflow) with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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