list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: a tier-gate capability marker ('available_with_tier_gate; tier: scout_catalog_pioneer_runs') and the backing API paths, which signals the tool may be unavailable at lower tiers.

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 short sentences with the capability/tier metadata front-loaded and the substance immediately after. The bracketed metadata block is dense but earns its place by disclosing the tier gate; nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does compensate by naming the returned fields (goals, tiers, step graphs). However, for a one-parameter discovery tool the undocumented filter and the absence of any guidance on what to do with the catalog afterwards leave a clear gap.

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 single parameter 'filter' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Its accepted syntax, whether it matches names, goals, or tiers, and whether omission returns everything are all left to guesswork.

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 ('Get the JSON catalog of named DeFi workflow recipes') and names the returned fields (goals, tiers, step graphs). That clearly separates it from mutating siblings like plan_workflow and run_workflow, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus plan_workflow, run_workflow, or get_workflow_status — all of which sit adjacent in the sibling list. The catalog framing implies a discovery step, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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