history_listProcessInstances

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'Query' implying read-only safety and lists specific return fields (id, definitionKey, etc.) since no output schema exists. However, lacks critical behavioral details like pagination, result limits, or performance warnings typical for history queries.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first establishes purpose and filters, second documents return fields. No redundant text; every clause delivers specific information about capabilities or outputs.

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?

Compensates effectively for missing output schema by enumerating return fields. Distinguishes historic from runtime scope. Could be improved by mentioning pagination behavior or result limits given the 'list' nature and large potential data volume in history tables.

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?

Zero parameters in schema establishes baseline 4. Description mentions filter criteria (key, business key, state, date range) which, while not reflected in the empty schema, documents intended query capabilities that would otherwise be undocumented.

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?

Specific verb 'Query' plus resource 'historic process instances' with clear scope. 'Historic' effectively distinguishes from runtime 'processInstance_list' sibling, and 'process instances' distinguishes from sibling history tools (activity instances, incidents, etc.).

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?

Implies usage through 'historic' designation and filter criteria (state active/completed), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus runtime processInstance_list or when to prefer over other history query tools.

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