List Workflow Runs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the scope ('you started') and ordering ('newest first'). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

One well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, scope, and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema available. The description covers the key nuance (only runs started by the user) and the intended workflow (recovering run_id), making it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which fully documents its minimum, maximum, default, and meaning. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists workflow runs, scoped to 'you started', sorted newest first, and explicitly connects to recovering run_id values for view_workflow_run. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows or view_workflow_run.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use scenario: recovering run_id values from prior MCP sessions before calling view_workflow_run. It implies the tool is for your own runs but doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative scenarios (e.g., when you need all runs).

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