ozon_list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool lists workflows, optionally filtered, and clarifies that categories in response always lists all values present. It's a read operation and no destructive actions are implied, but it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for this context.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a context paragraph about workflows, and an Args section. It is concise with about 80 words, though slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and relationship to sibling tools, making it complete for a lightweight list tool.

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 description goes significantly beyond the input schema by explaining the 'category' filter, listing all valid values (catalog, orders, analytics, etc.), and noting that response categories always list every value present. This adds essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 lists curated workflows, optionally filtered by category. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ozon_get_workflow, which fetches a full plan for a specific workflow.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternative: 'Use ozon_get_workflow to fetch the full plan for a specific workflow.' This provides clear guidance on selecting the right tool.

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