list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the visibility-scoped behavior ('visible to a team'), clarifying that the returned list is filtered by team visibility rather than being a global listing. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. The essential scoping information is front-loaded and every word carries meaning.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema parameter descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. The only non-obvious contextual detail—team-scoped visibility—is explicitly stated.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that team_id refers to the team whose visible workflows are listed, strengthening the meaning of the required parameter. It also implies limit/offset/status are standard pagination and filtering controls, consistent with 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('workflows'), and adds a scoping qualifier ('visible to a team') that makes the resource distinct from siblings like list_workflow_runs. This clearly identifies what the tool does and its target resource.

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 implies the tool should be used when workflows visible to a team are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_workflow_runs or discuss when not to use it. Some usage context is present, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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