list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implies read-only) and mentions filtering parameters, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'list' means (e.g., all workflows, only accessible ones). The return statement is minimal and doesn't explain format.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and documenting parameters. However, the return statement could be more informative, and there's some redundancy in 'List workflows' and 'list of workflows'.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should still cover usage guidelines and operational aspects. For a list tool with filtering, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that parameters are optional filters (destination_id, source_id, status) and provides context about what they filter by. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or the status enum values.

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 'List workflows from the Unstructured API' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (workflows). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow_info' (single workflow) and 'list_workflows_with_finished_jobs' (subset with jobs), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_jobs' which lists a different resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_workflows' over 'get_workflow_info' (for single workflow details) or 'list_workflows_with_finished_jobs' (for workflows with completed jobs). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.

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