list_automations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full transparency burden. 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but the description does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination defaults or response format. This minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for more detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with a well-documented schema and no output schema. The description states the core purpose but omits details about return values or pagination behavior. Given the low complexity and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable but not rich enough to fully inform callers about expected results.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (count, offset, status), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'automation workflows', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_automation_emails. It does not explicitly exclude other operations, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_automation or list_automation_emails. However, the straightforward 'List automation workflows' implies it is the default choice for enumerating automations, making usage reasonably clear.

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