List runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond them by noting results come from the user's own account, that history is empty until a run exists, and that instances surfaces non-terminal states. It omits retention limits and what happens if the cursor is stale, but the added operational context is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then source semantics, then pagination and the drill-down pointer. Dense but each sentence carries operational information; the executionId/instanceId field mentions edge toward redundancy given the output schema exists.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a full schema and an output schema, the definition covers default behavior, mode selection, pagination, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description still adds meaning: that history can be empty, that instances includes queued/waiting/paused runs, and that status filtering applies to instances. It largely reinforces rather than duplicates the schema's enum and cursor notes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a deployed workflow's recent runs') plus the scope ('newest first, read on demand from the user's own Cloudflare account'). It then splits the behavior into two named modes (source: history vs instances), which an agent can distinguish without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says history is the default, that it is empty until something has actually run, and that instances is the mode that includes queued/waiting/paused runs. It also names the sibling get_run for the drill-down case and explains the cursor loop, leaving little to inference.

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