List workflow executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context about ordering (most recent first) and the types of data returned (status, fault, trigger source, timing, credits, timestamps). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details without any fluff.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the fields returned (status, fault, etc.) and specifies ordering. It is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation, though it does not mention pagination limits.

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% for the single parameter, with a clear description in the schema ('The workflow's UUID'). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 lists a workflow's recent executions, with specific details on ordering (most recent first) and included fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_workflow_execution (which fetches a single execution) and list_runs (which lists runs generally) by scoping to a workflow's executions.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'a workflow's' executions, indicating it is for workflow-scoped queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it is for recent execution history.

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