workflows_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination behavior through the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters and filtering via 'active_only', which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'List'), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, explanatory context about workflows, and separate parameter/return sections. It's appropriately sized, though the workflow explanation could be slightly trimmed if space is tight.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description does a good job: it explains the purpose, documents parameters, and notes the return value. The output schema means return details aren't needed in the description, making this reasonably complete for a 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters ('page', 'per_page', 'active_only') with brief explanations, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. This is effective but not exhaustive (e.g., no default values or ranges).

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 'all workflows in your Apollo account', providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling workflow tools like 'workflow_templates_list' or 'workflow_get', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'workflow_get' (for a single workflow) or 'workflow_templates_list' (for templates). It only states what the tool does without context about use cases or exclusions.

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