rundeck_list_executions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as 'Query' which implies a read operation, but it does not state that it returns a list, discusses authentication needs, or mentions any side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, concise sentence of 10 words, front-loading the key action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is efficiently 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?

Despite having 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain pagination (offset/max), default behavior (default max 20), or the return format (list of executions). For a tool of this complexity, the description lacks sufficient completeness for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions filters for status, job, and time range, which aligns with the schema, but does not add additional meaning or usage context beyond the schema descriptions. The agent gets no extra help understanding parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Query', the resource 'executions', and the scope 'for a project'. It also mentions filters for status, job, and time range, which distinguishes it from single-execution tools like rundeck_get_execution. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from rundeck_get_job_executions or rundeck_list_running_executions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 its siblings, such as rundeck_get_job_executions or rundeck_list_running_executions. The description only states what the tool does, without specifying context or alternatives.

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