List Workflow Managers (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly a safe read. The description adds behavioral context: pagination control via page/per_page and that response includes pagination metadata. It also discloses the endpoint and API version. No contradictions.

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 four sentences: purpose, use cases, pagination behavior, and required parameters/API info. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers pagination, required parameters, and endpoint details. It could be more complete by describing the pagination metadata fields, but it is sufficient for a list operation. A small gap exists in not detailing the response structure beyond 'paginated JSON array'.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters well. The description merely reiterates that company_id and tool_type are required and mentions tool_subtype condition, but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Returns a list'), the resource ('workflow managers'), and the scope ('for a given company and tool'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workflow_managers_project by specifying company-level.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'enumerate Workflows when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters'. It mentions required parameters but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling context implies project-level alternative.

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