list_workflow_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: access is contingent on edition/license/permissions and some routes silently return empty lists or 404, which an agent must anticipate. What it omits is response shape and pagination behavior.

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 short sentences with the core action first and the caveat second; the trailing endpoint path is compact and reinforces the parameter mapping. No filler, though the endpoint string is somewhat redundant for an agent that already has the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say at least something about what a run record contains or how results are paginated/ordered; instead it only mentions that lists may be empty. The permission/edition caveat is the strongest completeness contribution, so the definition is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a list endpoint.

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 carry the burden, and it only partially does so via the endpoint template GET /project/{project_id}/workflows/{workflow_id}/runs, which clarifies that both are path identifiers in a project→workflow hierarchy. It adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond that structural hint.

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?

"Get workflow runs" names the resource but uses a weak generic verb and does not distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_workflow_run (single run) or list_workflow_run_approvals. An agent can infer it enumerates runs, but the description never states whether it returns all runs, recent runs, or filtered sets.

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 availability caveat (edition, license, permissions, 404s or empty lists on some Community routes) is genuinely useful context for deciding whether to call this at all. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_workflow_run or list_workflows, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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