list_mcp_workflow_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (JSON array), the key fields included (descriptions, required MCPs, cost estimates, time estimates), and provides an example with a count. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only list operation this is reasonable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core statement, followed by concise details about the return value, a formal 'Returns' line, and an illustrative example. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes 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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It describes the return content and structure, and the output schema exists (as noted in context signals), so the description need not explain return values in depth. Minor gaps remain (e.g., pagination, performance), but these are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately adds value by describing what the returned data contains, which is more useful than parameter explanations.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List all available multi-MCP workflow templates.' The phrase 'all available' explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'get_mcp_workflow_template' which retrieves a single template. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating it lists all templates, and the sibling list includes a singular getter, but it does not explicitly say 'When you need a specific template, use get_mcp_workflow_template.' There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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