list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'List workflow names' does imply a lightweight read with no mutation. It adds useful context that an unset version resolves to the latest, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether names are fully qualified — gaps for a discovery tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the version caveat placed after. Nearly zero waste; only mild thinning is the parenthetical aside, which still earns its place by defining the resource.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both optional parameters are at least addressed. What remains missing is guidance on module value format and the choice between this tool and get_workflow, which matters given ten siblings in the same namespace.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: pylops_version gets an example format ('2.6') and a documented default, and module is identified as an optional filter. However, the accepted values/shape of module remain undefined in both schema and description.

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 workflow names') and clarifies what a workflow is here ('inversion/decomposition helpers'), which alone distinguishes it from the operator/solver/proxoperator listings. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling get_workflow, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

'optionally by module' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to call get_workflow instead. The pylops_version note gives a default but not a rationale for choosing an older version.

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