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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Nothing executes on the FrameOn side, and asking for one costs you nothing but the text.' It also discloses the return shape: each entry carries a name, a one-line purpose, and the tools it uses.

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 longer than minimal but front-loads the core purpose and keeps each paragraph purposeful. There is slight redundancy between 'Cheap to call' and 'costs you nothing but the text,' but it does not obscure the content.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the returned entries contain and what to do next. It covers purpose, cost, output structure, side-effect behavior, and the follow-up call to get_skill, making the tool fully usable without additional context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the ready-made workflows this workspace knows how to run') and enumerates concrete examples. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling get_skill by presenting listing as the precursor to fetching one skill.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'worth calling once at the start of a session so you know what exists before improvising a sequence of calls.' It also points to get_skill as the next step, though it does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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