Workflows: list

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context by enumerating the exact per-entry payload and explicitly calling out that steps are omitted, plus 'Returns JSON.' It does not mention ordering or pagination, but the return-content disclosure is strong.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no waste: purpose, payload detail, and alternative routing in that order. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and delivers it fully — it enumerates the fields returned and explicitly states what is not included (steps), then routes to the sibling that provides them. Nothing an agent needs to call this no-param list tool correctly is missing.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full listing, which matches the empty schema with additionalProperties=false.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (workflows), then enumerates the fields each entry contains (id, name, description, enabled flag, step count, triggers) and explicitly notes it excludes steps. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling workflows_get. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative sibling (workflows_get) and the condition that selects it ('to see a workflow's steps and how they link'). This is clear routing guidance, though it stops short of a full when/when-not split or noting the parameterless nature of this call.

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