Workflows: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result cap, no note about what 'all' means in a multi-tenant or permission-scoped context. For a list endpoint with no output schema, a small amount of behavioral context would have been cheap and valuable.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of its other gaps rather than a virtue earned by careful editing.

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 and no annotations covering scope or pagination, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the returned list contains and how it is bounded. It says none of that, and it also fails to differentiate from the many sibling workflow tools.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 verb+resource ('List all workflows'), which is clear enough as a basic purpose, but it does nothing to separate itself from closely named siblings such as workflows_get, workflows_jobs, or workflows_export. With roughly a dozen workflow siblings in the tool list, the lack of any scoping phrase leaves the agent to infer which one returns the full collection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no prerequisites. The agent must guess whether this returns every workflow across the account or only those it owns, and whether workflows_get is the narrower alternative.

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