list_workflows

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

The description adds useful behavior context by mentioning 'Returns node counts and metadata.' With readOnlyHint already present, the safety profile is covered. However, 'List all workflows' overstates the response, as the schema includes a limit (default 50) and cursor, indicating pagination. The description does not disclose that the first call returns a page, not literally all workflows.

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, tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every component (filters, return metadata) earns its place.

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 description is generally adequate for a simple list tool, but it leaves a notable gap: pagination behavior. Without an output schema, the agent must infer pagination from the schema's cursor/limit parameters, and 'all workflows' is misleading. It could be more complete by stating that results are paginated.

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 100%, so all parameters are already well-defined. The description merely restates what the schema conveys (filtering by active status, tags, or name) without adding syntactic detail or clarifying cursor behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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') with a clear resource ('workflows') and scope ('all'), and enumerates filtering criteria. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_workflow (single) and create/update/delete mutations.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when needing to list workflows with filters) and provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives like 'use get_workflow for a single workflow' or list exclusionary scenarios, so it misses the top score.

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