vro_workflow_run_get_all

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world GET operation. The description adds that the result is a list and mentions optional filtering, but it does not explain pagination behavior, authentication, rate limits, or the filtering semantics in a verifiable way.

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 and front-loaded with the resource and action. It wastes some space by repeating the list concept and the endpoint path, but it remains easy to parse.

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 list tool with no output schema and a required pagination object, the description should explain pagination or return behavior. It instead references unsupported filter parameters and leaves the actual schema parameters undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate for the required page object containing page, size, and sort. Instead, it mentions eventId and workflowId filters that do not appear in the schema, which is misleading because additionalProperties is false.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing Workflow Runs. It is clear it retrieves runs rather than workflow definitions, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from run-specific siblings such as vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id or vro_workflow_run_logs_get_by_run_id.

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?

It implies the tool is used to list Workflow Runs and that filtering by eventId/workflowId is possible. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like retrieving a single run or run logs.

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