list_workflows

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld semantics. The description adds useful context about the data source (userdata) and search behavior, but does not go much deeper; no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, all relevant. The core resource is front-loaded, the related tool is referenced, and the parameter semantics are stated precisely without filler.

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-type tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers data source, filtering behavior, and intended next step. Missing return details are not an issue because an output schema exists.

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 provides only a bare string with a default and zero description coverage, but the description explains exactly what the search does: case-insensitive substring filtering of names. That is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 clear verb+resource: lists saved Workflow browser workflows from userdata. It also distinguishes itself from import_workflow by indicating these are already-saved items, not arbitrary JSON.

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?

Explicitly connects to import_workflow(name=...) as the follow-up action, giving the agent an immediate workflow chain. It does not spell out when to choose list_workflows over find_workflow or other siblings, so a tiny gap remains.

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