list_workflow_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action with optional filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List workflow runs') and includes the key detail about filtering. There's no wasted language, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the complexity (a list operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'workflow run' entails, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description mentions 'optional filtering by workflow ID,' which aligns with the single parameter 'workflow_id' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter is fully documented in the schema), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already structured, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('List workflow runs') and resource ('workflow runs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' (singular) or 'list_workflows', which list workflows rather than runs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' (for a single run) or 'run_workflow' (to execute a workflow), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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