Server-side aggregation over recent automation instances

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 output size (~1 KB) and the nature of aggregation, but doesn't mention potential performance impact or what defines 'recent'.

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 one sentence plus an output size note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with key 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range) but otherwise covers the necessary context.

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 covers all 3 parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: that the tool aggregates counts by status/template/success/failure, that max_scan limits the walk, and that response_format controls output type.

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 walks recent automation instances and returns counts (by_status, by_template, success/failure), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_automation_instances which would return raw instance data.

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 implies usage for summary counts but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_automation_instances or get_automation_results.

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