nexo_workflow_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, pagination, sorting, or error behavior. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a listing tool.

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 extremely concise at three words, but this brevity sacrifices valuable information. While no extra words are wasted, the under-specification means it is not efficiently conveying necessary details.

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 no output schema and numerous sibling workflow tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, how results are ordered, or how it differs from other list/search tools like 'nexo_workflow_get', leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain what parameters like 'limit', 'status', and 'include_closed' mean, but it offers no information. The agent cannot understand how to filter or control the list without additional context.

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 'List durable workflow runs' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexo_workflow_get' by focusing on listing multiple runs, though it could be more specific (e.g., 'list all workflow runs with optional filtering').

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_workflow_get' or 'nexo_workflow_open'. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when to avoid using it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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