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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what information is returned, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or explain edge cases such as what happens when the workflow does not exist or when no run has occurred.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists useful output fields. The trailing 'and more' adds mild vagueness, but overall the description is concise and appropriately structured.

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 description covers the main purpose and some return fields, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no distinction from sibling history tools, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent trying to choose among the related tools.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a workflow execution,' followed by concrete data points like status, history length, start time, and close time. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the history-focused sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_workflow_execution_history or list_workflow_executions. It also doesn't mention that omitting runId returns the latest run or that region defaults to 'us'—those details are only in the schema, not in usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says this is a convenience method that fetches 'complete workflow history' and is similar to another tool; it does not explain the meaning of 'complete', what is returned, which run is used by default, or any error/edge-case behavior. The schema mentions 'latest run' but the description itself is vague.

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 definition is appropriately short and front-loaded: the first clause states the core action, and the second sentence provides routing guidance. The hedge 'may be easier' and the undefined 'workflow handle' add mild ambiguity, but no sentence is wasted.

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, no annotations, and no return-value description, the agent is left to infer what 'complete workflow history' actually contains. There is also a potential ambiguity between 'complete workflow history' and the schema's fact that only the latest run is fetched when runId is omitted. The description does not resolve this, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description adds little beyond identifying workflowId as the ID-based handle, and its 'workflow handle' wording is somewhat inconsistent with the actual parameter name. The schema already documents runId and region well.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'fetch complete workflow history' and distinguishes this from get_workflow_execution_history by positioning it as easier 'when you only have the workflow ID.' However, the phrase 'using the workflow handle' introduces an undefined term that the schema calls workflowId, which slightly weakens the otherwise specific purpose.

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?

It explicitly names the closest alternative, get_workflow_execution_history, and gives a use-case condition for choosing this tool: 'easier to use when you only have the workflow ID.' It does not state when not to use it or describe exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the result is complete and raw, includes all event types, and can be very large, which is valuable context. It does not mention pagination or output format, but the size warning is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a necessary warning and a pointer to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Covers the core function and points to a clear alternative for compact summaries, but leaves the relationship with the fetch_workflow_history sibling unexplained and provides no return-format or pagination hints. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the region enum. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get the complete RAW execution history of a Temporal workflow, listing event types such as activity executions, signals, and timers. However, the sibling 'fetch_workflow_history' appears nearly identical and is not differentiated, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_workflow_step_results for a compact summary with resultUri, and warns about the large size of the response. Does not address when to choose this over the similarly named fetch_workflow_history sibling, so the guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool returns a processed, compact summary rather than raw history, and that it exposes resultUri for further log downloads. It does not discuss errors, pagination, or permissions, but these are minimal for a read-only getter.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, why it is useful, and a concrete use case. No filler or repetition beyond the intentional emphasis on resultUri.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return elements (resultUri, step names, durations, success status) and clearly situates the tool among history-focused siblings. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how workflowId, runId, or region interact with the output, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processed step results from a workflow execution'), and lists concrete output fields (resultUri, step names, durations, success status). It also distinguishes itself from history tools by emphasizing it is a 'compact summary' rather than the 'full raw history'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for analyzing step outcomes and for retrieving resultUri to download logs. It implies a contrast with full-history alternatives but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that closed means completed, failed, terminated, etc., but it does not mention ordering, pagination results, region defaulting, or any rate/safety considerations. A borderline adequate disclosure.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical status list is compact and informative. There is no wasted wording.

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 combination of schema and description is sufficient for a basic invocation: required times are clear, defaults are in the schema, and the resource type is named. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe return shape, paging behavior, or when to prefer this over list_workflow_executions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, formats, defaults, and enums (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds no param-specific detail beyond the time range, matching 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('workflow executions'), and a clear qualifier ('closed – completed, failed, terminated, etc'), which differentiates it from sibling list_workflow_executions. The time-range constraint is also stated clearly.

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 makes the intended context clear: use when you need executions that have already closed within a specified time range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the state filter and time range are enough context to guide selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention Temporal visibility query syntax and optional filtering, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return shape is, whether there are pagination implications, or what happens with an invalid query. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and uses two short sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds useful information about the tool's behavior.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a close sibling 'list_closed_workflow_executions', the description is not complete enough. It fails to clarify whether this tool lists only open, only closed, or all executions, and it does not explain return behavior. An agent could easily pick the wrong tool or miss important listing semantics.

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%, so the parameters 'query', 'region', and 'pageSize' are already fully documented with defaults and enums in the schema. The description adds only high-level filter categories and no parameter-specific detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('workflow executions'), and the key capability of optional filtering using Temporal visibility query syntax. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_closed_workflow_executions', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list workflow executions and optionally filter by workflow type, status, start time, etc. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or comparison with alternatives such as 'list_closed_workflow_executions', so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that termination is immediate and that the workflow is marked as terminated. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects, which would be valuable for a mutating tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and primary consequence are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a simple termination action with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could be more complete by noting that termination is irreversible and that only running executions are affected.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 states a specific verb ('Terminate') and resource ('running workflow execution'), and adds the key consequence: it stops immediately and marks the execution as terminated. This clearly differentiates the tool from its read-only siblings (list/get/describe/fetch history).

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 phrase 'running workflow execution' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but none of the sibling tools perform termination, so the usage intent is unambiguous.

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