List tool executions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('most recent first'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or retention limits despite a cursor parameter existing.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering caveat appended where it matters. No padding, though it is arguably too terse to carry structure.

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 a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the omission of pagination and scope-filter explanation is acceptable. The description supplies only the ordering guarantee, which is the one behavior not expressed in the structured fields.

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, cursor and selfOnly are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation for any of them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List past tool executions') plus the ordering ('most recent first'), which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_tool_execution or cancel_tool_execution, so an agent gets no help disambiguating within this family.

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 word 'past' implies this is for historical/completed executions rather than in-flight ones, which is the only usage signal present. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_tool_execution or list_workflow_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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