list_executions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the HTTP method and endpoint, but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, whether pagination applies, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavior beyond the raw action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function. It is concise and well-structured for a simple action.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a terse description. It does not explain what an 'execution history' entry contains, whether results are paginated, or how this relates to sibling tools. Given the lack of structural metadata, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 67%, with descriptions for status and deployment_id. The limit parameter is partially described via title, default, min, and max, but no explicit purpose is given. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema provides moderate clarity. Given medium coverage, the description does not compensate or add meaning, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Search execution history' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the exact endpoint (POST /v3/activity/list), adding technical specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_execution, though 'search' vs 'get' implies a difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_execution or get_bot_actions. The description only states the action without any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons. The intended use is implied by the name but not explicitly communicated.

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