list-workflow-instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists run instances and returns instance IDs, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as destructive/hint, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when no instances exist. The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. Every sentence provides useful information: what the tool does and how it relates to a sibling tool.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains the purpose and recommends a sibling, but lacks behavioral context like pagination limits or error handling, which could be inferred from schema but not stated.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that the tool returns instance IDs, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('run instances for a workflow'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get-workflow-instance' by stating that it returns instance IDs for further drilling.

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 explicitly mentions that the tool returns instance IDs to drill into with 'get-workflow-instance', providing clear context and suggesting an alternative tool for detailed step-level state and errors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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