zadig_workflow_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists workflows and does not mention pagination, auth needs, whether project_key is required, or how query affects results. The output schema covers return shape but not the tool's behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices important behavioral and usage detail.

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 tool with no annotations, two undocumented optional parameters, and many sibling tools, this description is insufficient for confident invocation. It identifies the resource but omits filtering semantics, selection criteria, and any context that would help an agent choose this tool over its workflow siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain query or project_key. It only loosely says 'in a project', which hints at project_key, but the meaning of query, defaults, and optionality are left undefined.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Zadig workflows') with a scope ('in a project'). This makes the core purpose clear and distinguishes it from single-item tools like workflow_get, but it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling workflow tools such as workflow_get, workflow_task_list, or workflow_create. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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