list_workflow_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is adequate for this simple tool. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects) or mention any rate limits or potential errors.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without excess. It is front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvement could be made by separating the examples into a list, but it is still concise.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the function and provides sample values. It could optionally note that the output is a list of template names, but that is implied.

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 no parameters (empty object), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying that the tool lists built-in templates and gives concrete examples (e.g., 'cold_outreach_3_step'), which is beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: listing built-in workflow templates. It also provides specific examples of template names, making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_workflow', which presumably use these templates.

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 implies the templates are for chaining channels into a funnel, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, order of operations, or exclusions is provided.

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