list_workflow_run_approvals

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious operational context: edition/license/permission dependencies and the possibility of 404s or empty lists on Community. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but for this low-complexity read endpoint the added warning is meaningful.

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?

Two tight sentences plus an endpoint path; the primary purpose and availability caveat are front-loaded with no filler.

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 only three required path parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies the crucial availability caveats. A brief note on return contents would make it fully complete, but nothing essential for invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The REST path template clarifies the hierarchical roles of project_id, workflow_id, and run_id, but it does not explain formats, constraints, or identification details beyond the parameter names.

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 and resource ('Get workflow run approvals') and backs it with the exact REST path. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like resolve_workflow_approval and from list_workflow_runs.

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?

Adds useful context that availability depends on edition, license, and permissions, and that Community routes may 404 or return empty lists. However, it never states when to choose this tool versus resolve_workflow_approval or other run-related tools, so usage is only implied.

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