grok_workflows

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 transparency. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the path specification adds context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, what happens if no workflows exist, or whether any environment setup is required. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and is immediately informative. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and it fits the tool's simplicity.

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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it states the operation, the resource type, and the location. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present. The absence of parameter details is irrelevant since there are none.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool lists and from where, providing context that the schema cannot. Since 0 parameters typically warrant a baseline of 4, this score is appropriate.

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's function: 'List available Grok Build workflows'. It specifies the source path ('.grok/workflows/*.rhai'), making the resource unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'grok_workflow' (singular) and 'grok_ask' by focusing on listing workflows.

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 listing workflows, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'grok_workflow' or 'grok_ask'. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The simple nature of the tool makes the usage somewhat obvious, but explicit guidance is missing.

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