list_executions

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantive behavioral detail by explaining the shape of the progress field, including all buckets and rates, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three terse sentences, each carrying distinct value: what is listed, when to use it, and what progress contains. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 usefully explains a key part of the response (progress bucket details). It also gives the intended lookup scenario. It doesn't mention pagination or the exact fields returned for each execution, but for a harmless read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 description does not add parameter-level detail. Schema coverage is 60%: projectId, search, and status have descriptions, while limit and offset only have names and defaults. However, limit and offset are self-explanatory pagination parameters and have sensible defaults, so the gap is minor.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('Manual Test Executions for a project'), and adds the distinguishing element of progress stats. It is easy for an agent to differentiate this from the singular get_execution or related add-source tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use to find an existing execution id before adding sources', which gives a concrete trigger scenario. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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