BearQ: List Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the truncation limit of 100 and the totalCount field. It also discloses the returned fields (id, name, description, steps, last run), useful because no output schema exists, though it omits ordering, auth context, or rate limits.

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 functional sentences front-load the listing behavior and truncation caveat. The boilerplate 'Toolset' and 'Parameters: None' lines add minor noise but do not obscure the core message.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape and truncation behavior. It could mention ordering or whether archived workflows are included, but it is largely complete for this complexity.

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 no parameters; the description simply confirms 'Parameters: None', matching the empty schema. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is no additional parameter meaning to add.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (workflows) scoped to the workspace, and enumerates returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling workflow tools like bearq_get_workflow_run or bearq_run_workflow, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named for cases such as inspecting a single workflow run. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement.

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