List Workflow Runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no default/maximum page size, no ordering of results, and no note that the listing is scoped to a single workflow.

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?

Four words with no wasted text, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, no qualifier, and nothing for the agent to act on beyond the tool name itself.

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 an 8-parameter list tool, the description is inadequate even accounting for the existing output schema (which removes the need to explain return values). Pagination semantics and the four date-range filters — the nontrivial parts of the call — are left entirely undocumented.

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 only 25%: page_size, page_number, and the four filter_created_at_* parameters have no documentation anywhere. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so the ambiguous time-filter semantics (format, inclusivity of gt vs gte, timezone) remain unresolved for the agent.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_workflow or create_workflow_run, and no prerequisites noted (e.g., that workflow_id is mandatory to scope the listing). Usage is only weakly implied by the verb "list".

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