List workflows

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lighter. It nonetheless adds real value by disclosing the shape of each returned entry (workflow_id, input_schema, steps with step_id + model), which is important because there is no output schema.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the identity/shape of the resource is front-loaded and the follow-up action (run_workflow) comes last where an agent expects it.

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 zero-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the next step. It omits minor context such as scope (are templates global or workspace-specific) or expected volume, but nothing that would cause a mis-invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of input_schema refers to the listed workflows' schemas rather than to this tool's inputs, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 specific verb and resource ('List Relay's workflow templates') and immediately defines what a workflow template is (multi-step pipeline run as one call), which distinguishes it from run_workflow, check_workflow_run, and cancel_workflow_run.

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 routes the agent onward: 'Run one with run_workflow; inputs follow input_schema.' That names the alternative tool and the handoff condition. It does not state when this listing tool itself is preferred over other discovery tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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