Server-side aggregation over recent automation instances

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: a scan cap with default, the meaning of has_more as uncounted instances beyond max_scan, and an approximate output size. It is honest about a limitation (no per-template breakdown) rather than overselling the aggregation.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the truncation caveat and output size. Every sentence carries information; the phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('Instance lists carry no actions') but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers the scan cap, truncation flag, output size, and the missing per-template dimension. The remaining gap is that org_id is optional (no required params) and the description never says what scope is used when it is omitted.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default value of max_scan (1000) is not declared in the schema, and the consequence of hitting the cap (truncated counts flagged by has_more) is explained. It says nothing about org_id scoping or response_format behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — walks automation instances and returns counts by_status — which is clearly an aggregation, not a listing. It also pre-empts a likely confusion by stating there is no per-template count. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. action1_list_automation_instances) as the alternative for raw instances.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for counts rather than individual instances, and the 'no per-template count' note hints at what to use elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling automation tools.

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