list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return fields, but does not mention whether filters apply by default, pagination behavior, or any side effects. There is no additional context about rate limits, permissions, or edge cases.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List all available workflows') and adds relevant output details. Every word earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states what it does and what fields are shown. However, it does not explain the default behavior of the status filter or potential large result sets, which would be useful for an agent.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'status' parameter with a description of valid values ('all, active, draft'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per schema high coverage, baseline is 3. The description does not compensate further, but it is sufficient.

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 tool lists all available workflows, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_workflow (single workflow) and run_workflow (execution) by focusing on the listing operation. The mention of fields shown (name, trigger type, actions) adds specificity.

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 usage for browsing workflows but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_workflow for details or run_workflow for execution. No alternatives are mentioned, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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