list_automations

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the tool reveals 'what already runs,' which conveys it returns existing automations for review. However, it doesn't disclose whether results include disabled automations, pagination behavior, or detail level — minor gaps for a simple list operation but not fully transparent.

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 with zero filler. The verb is front-loaded, the resource is clear, and the trailing purpose clause earns its place by adding workflow context. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema.

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 read-only list tool with a safety annotation and only two parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is that parameter semantics are entirely unaddressed (0% schema coverage), and there is no mention of what fields the returned automations contain. Still, an agent can call this tool correctly with the given information plus reasonable inference from parameter names.

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 0% for two required parameters, and the description does not explain boardId or projectId or how they relate. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the rule requires the description to compensate for low schema coverage, and it offers no parameter-level guidance whatsoever.

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 ('automations on a board'), and adds purposeful context ('so you can see what already runs before adding another'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create_automation while matching the read-only intent of list_organizations/list_boards/list_projects.

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 'before adding another' gives a clear usage context: call this as a pre-flight check prior to create_automation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended workflow is evident enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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