listWorkflows

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: result ordering is oldest-first and the caller must keep passing next_cursor until it is null, which tells the agent exactly how to drain the result set.

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?

Two short sentences plus a tag; the scoping fact (oldest first, paginated) leads and the terminal condition follows. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: ordering, page-slicing, and the loop termination condition. It stops short of hinting at what a workflow record contains, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, with both limit and cursor already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the cursor loop ('pass back next_cursor until it is null') but adds no syntax, bounds, or default information the schema does not already carry.

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 the resource (your workflows) plus its ordering (oldest first) and pagination model, which is enough to separate it from getWorkflow, createWorkflow, and the node-type listers. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', but 'one cursor page at a time' plus the plural resource makes the read-listing intent unambiguous.

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?

'Use it to find a workflow id' gives a concrete reason to call it, which is more than most siblings. However, no alternative is named (e.g. getWorkflow for a single known id) and there are no conditions for when not to use it, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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