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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state this or provide additional context such as authentication requirements, return format, or side effects. It is minimally transparent but lacks proactive behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is listed and the domain context. However, it could marginally improve by specifying the return format (e.g., an array of workflow names) or explicitly noting the operation is read-only, but these are not critical gaps.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist, and it adds no unnecessary detail.

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 tool lists 'curated named workflows' for generating least-privilege IAM policies. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (workflows), and adds scoping detail (curated, named, least-privilege IAM policies) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_methods and list_services.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing workflows for IAM policy generation), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The purpose is implied, but no exclusionary guidance is given compared to sibling list tools.

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