workflow_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: explains that planned_agent_count is a 'static lower bound', dynamic_nodes can cause legitimate agent count increases, and planned_agent_count==0 means unknown plan (not zero). This is excellent transparency for the tool's domain-specific semantics.

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?

Very concise. First sentence immediately states core purpose. Additional two sentences add critical domain knowledge without fluff. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains all non-obvious behavioral aspects needed to correctly interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters documented). Description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, which is fine per guidelines (baseline 3).

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?

Description clearly states it lists 'CC ultracode/Workflow runs tracked by the OS observability layer', using specific verb 'List' and resource 'workflow runs'. Distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'workflow_get' (singular) and 'workflow_reconcile' (different action).

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?

Provides detailed context on when to use this tool vs alternatives by explaining the meaning of fields like planned_agent_count and dynamic_nodes, which helps the agent interpret results correctly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different use cases.

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