workflow_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists all workflows, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, whether it includes deleted workflows, or performance considerations. However, the tool is simple with no parameters, and the behavior is straightforward.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

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 tool has an output schema and no parameters, the description is fairly complete. However, it could mention ordering, pagination, or if it returns workflows from the current workspace only. But for a simple list tool, it is adequate.

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 no parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100% as there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter-level information, but none is needed.

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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'registered workflows (all statuses)', clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'workflow_discover' by mentioning filtered listing is done via that alternative.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for unfiltered listing of all workflows, and for filtered listing use 'workflow_discover' instead. This directly tells the agent when to and when not to use this tool.

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