listActiveWorkflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'currently running' instances, implying real-time status, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination (via the 'limit' parameter), response format, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns dynamic data.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (listing dynamic workflow instances), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'currently running' entails, how results are structured, or how to handle the 'limit' parameter, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. Since the schema doesn't explain what 'limit' does (e.g., pagination or max results), the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('currently running workflow instances'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getWorkflowModels' or 'startWorkflow', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getWorkflowModels' (which might list workflow definitions) or 'startWorkflow' (which initiates workflows). It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of function.

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