workflow_templates_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid parameters. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, brief context about templates, and organized parameter/return documentation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose content. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 low complexity (list operation with 2 simple parameters), an output schema exists (so return values are covered), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a simple tool, this is borderline complete but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') in an Args section, adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't explain default values or constraints (e.g., range limits). With 2 parameters and full coverage in the description, this exceeds the baseline.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available workflow templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflow_create_from_template' (which uses templates) and 'workflows_list' (which lists active workflows). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'workflow_create_from_template' in terms of template selection vs. listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'workflow_create_from_template' (for selecting a template to create a workflow) or 'workflows_list' (for listing active workflows). The second sentence explains what templates are but doesn't help with tool selection.

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