list_workflow_executions

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.