list-workflow-instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns instance IDs, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention pagination or result format, but the core behavior is 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose clearly, second provides context for further action. No wasted words. Efficient and well-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?

For a listing tool with good annotations and known parameters, the description covers purpose, return value (instance IDs), and next steps. It lacks mention of pagination behavior, but overall it is complete enough for correct 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., workflowId, pageSize with default and max, pageNumber 0-based). Thus, no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool lists run instances (executions) for a workflow. It distinguishes from siblings like get-workflow (definition) and get-workflow-instance (step-level detail), and from other list-* tools by specifying the resource type.

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 advises using get-workflow-instance for deeper step-level state and errors, indicating a follow-up action. It implies this tool is for initial listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other list tools.

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