make_list_incomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists failed executions that are waiting, indicating a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not mention behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens if no failed executions exist. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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, zero wasted words: first sentence states purpose clearly, second gives usage guidance. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it lists, and when to use it. It lacks explicit differentiation from make_list_executions but is sufficient for basic use.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds overall context (DLQ, retry usage) but does not add specific parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('incomplete/failed executions (DLQ) of a Make.com scenario'), and explains what these executions are ('runs that errored and are waiting'). This distinguishes it from siblings like make_list_executions (which lists all executions) and make_retry_execution (which retries).

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this before retrying.' This provides clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools explicitly, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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