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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about what an entry contains (arguments and category) and what prompt workflows are, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not over-explain behavior already declared structurally.

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 with no filler. The opening states the core action, the parenthetical gives concrete examples, and the second sentence explains output contents and the next step. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains what the response contains, gives workflow examples, and points to the follow-up action. It is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret results correctly, though it could name the category/argument fields more explicitly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the output entries instead.

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 ('List') and resource ('Space Monkey prompt workflows'), and expands on what these are: user-invocable recipes that chain sm_ tools into sales actions. It also points to sm_get_prompt as the related rendering tool, helping distinguish list from get.

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?

Implicitly establishes when to use this tool: to discover available prompt workflows and their arguments/categories. It explicitly tells the agent to use sm_get_prompt to render one with concrete argument values, but does not mention any exclusions or alternative list tools.

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