kaiten_list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a list operation and supports pagination, which implies a non-mutating read. However, it does not describe response format, ordering, potential filtering limitations, or any scoping details beyond 'company'.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination note adds value without repetition. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional pagination parameters, the purpose and pagination support are adequate. However, there is no output schema and no guidance on alternatives, default limits, result ordering, or whether any other constraints apply. An agent can call it, but may not fully understand what to expect in the response.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters: limit as 'Maximum number of results' and offset as 'Offset for pagination', giving 100% schema coverage. The description only adds 'Supports pagination', which reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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'), a concrete resource ('company workflows'), and a scope qualifier ('company'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_workflow, create_workflow, update_workflow, and delete_workflow among the siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'List' implies enumeration, but the description does not mention that it should be used to enumerate workflows while get_workflow retrieves a single one, nor does it state any exclusions or preferred conditions.

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