list_ros2_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and 'MCP-owned' and 'below a USD root' add scoping context. However, it does not explain traversal depth, filtering semantics, what counts as 'MCP-owned', or whether the call has any side effects beyond returning data.

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 with no filler. Every phrase ('List', 'MCP-owned', 'below a USD root') contributes meaning and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation: the roles of command_id and idempotency_key are unclear, and the meaning of 'MCP-owned' and the traversal scope are under-specified. An agent can call the tool with defaults, but cannot confidently customize the call based on this description alone.

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, but it only hints at root_path through 'below a USD root'. command_id and idempotency_key are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose and format unexplained despite being optional parameters with defaults.

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 ('MCP-owned ROS 2 publisher graphs') and a scoping qualifier ('below a USD root'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling create/delete workflow tools without needing to inspect the schema.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_ros2_workflow or the various create_ros2_* publishers. The read-only listing intent is implied by the verb, but there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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