List Workflow Managers (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral details: paginated JSON array response with metadata, required parameters, and endpoint URL. It aligns with annotations and provides useful context beyond what annotations offer.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, pagination guidance, required parameters, API reference.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (paginated JSON array of Workflows with metadata) and provides the endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for a list tool, though a brief note about typical fields in a workflow manager object would enhance completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description reiterates required parameters and adds context for pagination parameters ('Use page and per_page to control pagination'), but this adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 it returns a list of workflow managers for a given project and tool. It uses specific verbs ('Returns', 'enumerate') and distinguishes from company-level and instance-level tools by specifying project and tool parameters. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_instances_project'.

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 advises when to use the tool (for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering) and mentions pagination controls. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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