jamjet_list_executions

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral aspects. It correctly states read-only nature, result ordering (newest first), pagination support, and default behavior. Slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning rate limits or any potential side effects (though there are none).

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 6 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Every sentence provides essential information without verbosity. Clearly structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers behavior: reading, side-effects, default behavior, ordering, pagination, and usage scenarios. Nothing significant is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value by explaining default behavior for each parameter (e.g., limit defaults to 50, offset defaults to 0, status filtering examples, tenant_id defaults to 'default'), which goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it lists workflow executions with optional status filtering and pagination. It specifies read-only behavior and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like jamjet_approve and jamjet_get_execution.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'find executions that need attention' with examples (filter by 'paused' for awaiting approval, filter by 'running' to monitor active workflows). It also mentions an alternative (jamjet_approve) implicitly through the usage scenario.

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