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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the newest-first ordering and that results carry per-status job counts, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a page_size parameter, leaving the caller without guidance on retrieving further pages.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and filters second; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Depot: CIService/ListWorkflows' internal reference adds no decision value for an agent, though it costs little.

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 7-parameter, zero-required list tool with only a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description covers ordering and the shape of results (status counts). The gap is pagination/continuation semantics, which an agent will need given page_size exists.

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 every parameter including the SHA pattern and status enum is already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the filter categories and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it—the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('List Depot CI workflows') plus ordering ('newest first') and return shape ('per-status job counts'). The phrase 'across runs' contrasts implicitly with the sibling depot_ci_list_runs, though the distinction is not made explicit.

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?

Enumerates the filter dimensions available (name/path, repo, status, trigger, SHA prefix, PR), which implies how to narrow results. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over depot_ci_list_runs or depot_ci_get_run_status, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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