ListWorkflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get workflow list') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single phrase '获取工作流列表', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it's not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context and structure, making it inefficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage beyond the name.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for effective tool selection and invocation is lacking.

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 input schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取工作流列表' (Get workflow list) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'ListWorkflows' without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like ListWorkflowDefinitions or ListWorkflowInstances, nor does it specify what kind of workflows or what scope is involved. It's minimally functional but lacks differentiation.

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. With sibling tools like ListWorkflowDefinitions and ListWorkflowInstances, there's no indication of how this tool differs in purpose or context. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative usage hints are mentioned.

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