list_process_automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention pagination behavior from limit, that inactive processes are hidden by default, or the ordering/shape of results — all of which matter for a list operation over an open-world collection.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the detail missing in the other dimensions.

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 and three fully documented parameters, the minimum needed to call the tool is present. What's absent is result-shape context — whether the response mixes playbooks and processes, and how default filtering affects the returned set — leaving the agent to discover this at call time.

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 limit, query and active are already self-documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema — notably it doesn't warn that active defaults to true and therefore suppresses inactive processes unless explicitly set to false.

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 ('List') and a named resource domain (Process Automation Designer playbooks and processes), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_process_automation (single-record fetch). However, it leaves ambiguous whether playbooks and processes are returned in one merged list or are two distinct entity types, and it doesn't differentiate from list_flows / list_subflows, which are adjacent automation concepts in the sibling set.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_process_automation for a single record or list_flows for flow definitions. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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