list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing by saying 'Names of the workflows,' but does not explicitly state that it performs no mutation, requires no special permissions, or has any side effects.

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 very short with no wasted words, but it is an incomplete sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded, well-structured statement. It under-specifies rather than being overly verbose.

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 the zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential resource and scope. However, it omits when to prefer this tool over siblings like describe_workflow, leaving a meaningful contextual gap for an agent choosing among tools.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description need not compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 identifies the resource (workflows) and scope (saved in the ComfyUI editor's Workflows panel), but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'List'. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like describe_workflow or run_workflow, leaving the exact action somewhat implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_workflow or run_workflow. The description only states what it returns, not the context or conditions that warrant calling it.

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