List workflow runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it surfaces status, timing, and errors, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, default limits, or ordering, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with a clear scope clause. Efficient, though it could be more informative without waste.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotation richness, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool returns conceptually but doesn't cover parameter usage or behavioral details like pagination, which an agent needs to invoke correctly. It's not misleading, but it leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 40%, so the description should compensate but does not: it mentions status, timing, and errors but not the parameters limit, device, status, workflow, or workflow_id. The schema itself provides descriptions for device and status, leaving limit, workflow, and workflow_id undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 when schema partially covers; here it's slightly below because description adds almost no parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states the verb and resource: inspecting run history for workflows. It specifies scope ('one workflow or across all of them') and names the returned attributes (status, timing, errors). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like writ_list_workflows or writ_workflow_data, but the resource (runs vs workflows vs data) is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling writ_list_workflows lists workflows and writ_workflow_data retrieves workflow data; it's unclear when an agent should call this tool instead. The description implies it's for inspecting run history but doesn't mention exclusions or companions.

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