List workflow runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real but vague context beyond that: provider scopes, locks and credits apply, implying permission requirements and credit consumption, but it names no scopes, cost, or concurrency details. 'Read operation' merely repeats readOnlyHint.

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 clauses with no filler and the endpoint front-loaded. The final sentence 'Read operation' is redundant with readOnlyHint=true and is the one line that does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what a workflow run listing returns and how pagination works via the 'page' parameter. Neither is covered, and with no usage guidance the definition is too thin for an agent to call this list endpoint confidently.

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 50%: 'account' is documented in the schema while 'page' has no description of default, pagination bounds, or ordering. The description contributes nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented half of the surface remains unexplained.

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 names the exact endpoint (GET /v5/workflow_runs) and the read nature of the call, so the resource and operation are identifiable, but it never states the purpose in plain terms (listing workflow runs) and offers no differentiation from close siblings such as list_workflows or get_workflow_run.

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 pointer to alternatives like get_workflow_run or list_workflows. The only contextual cue is the bare endpoint path, leaving selection between siblings entirely to inference.

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