hires_list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the key behavioral trait that workflows come with embedded stages, which adds value. However, it omits details such as pagination, filtering, or the default company behavior, which are not disclosed elsewhere. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded and the use case following immediately. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema—the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns (workflows with embedded stages) and why to use it (stage-aware integrations and routing rules). Missing details like output structure are not critical for this simple list tool.

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 already fully describes the only parameter company_id, including its default behavior when omitted (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'workflows with embedded stages', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like hires_list_workflow_stages and hires_get_workflow_stages. Adding 'for the company' further scopes the tool's purpose, making it unambiguous.

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 second sentence 'Use to build stage-aware integrations and routing rules' provides explicit usage context, indicating the intended application. However, it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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