List Workflow Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination behavior (use page and per_page) and that the response includes pagination metadata. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 with five sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage, pagination mechanics, required parameters, and API endpoint. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place 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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return type ('paginated JSON array of Workflows') and mentions pagination metadata. It also specifies the exact endpoint. While the structure of each workflow template is not detailed, this is acceptable for a list endpoint where the resource name implies the entity.

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% with each parameter documented. The description adds extra context, specifying that company_id is a URL path parameter and page/per_page are query string parameters for pagination. This enriches the schema's information.

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 action (list) and resource (workflow templates for a given company), with specific verbs like 'Returns' and 'Use this to enumerate.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on templates and mentioning pagination and filtering.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: to enumerate workflows, find IDs, or filter by query parameters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently clear given the resource uniqueness among siblings.

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