memory_workflow_list

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

With no annotations, the description itself must establish safety and behavior. 'List' conveys a read-only enumeration with no obvious destructive effect, but the description does not disclose the category-filter behavior or state that calling it has no side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

One short sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is efficient. It is slightly too terse to cover the optional category behavior, but the wording itself is appropriately 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?

The core purpose is clear and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The main gap is that the optional category parameter's filtering behavior is entirely absent from the description, leaving an agent to guess.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the category parameter. The property name and default are self-explanatory only to a degree, but the description does not say that category filters the returned workflows, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved workflows'), so an agent can tell this is the enumeration tool and not memory_workflow_save or memory_workflow_get. It lacks an explicit distinguishing note about scope or siblings, so it stops short of the top 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 intended use is implied by the verb and noun: an agent should call this when it wants to enumerate saved workflows. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over memory_workflow_get or how the optional category affects the call.

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