List Wiro workflow runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering (newest first), scope (includes runs started on wiro.ai), and the canResume signal that gates resumption — useful context beyond the annotations, though pagination behavior is left implicit.

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, no filler, with the scope and ordering front-loaded before the follow-up routing advice. The second sentence is dense but each clause (wait_seconds 0, canResume) carries distinct actionable meaning.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Scope, ordering, and next-step chaining are all present; only pagination guidance and a contrast with list_workflows are missing, which is minor.

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, start, search, and status are fully documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for these parameters, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list workflow runs) with explicit scope: the API key's workspace, newest first, including runs started on wiro.ai. This clearly distinguishes it from list_workflows (workflow definitions) and list_tasks in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: use wait_for_workflow_run with wait_seconds 0 to read outputs, or resume_workflow_run when canResume is true. Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each.

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