List workflow automations

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: pagination with has_more, the cost implication of include_analytics, and the shape of the analytics object returned. This is exactly the kind of extra context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and performance.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then details about pagination, filters, and analytics. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy with the schema.

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 an output schema exists and annotations provide the read-only hint, the description covers pagination, filter behavior, the special analytics flag, and what analytics fields are included. This is a complete picture for a list tool with five optional parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it reiterates the include_analytics cost and the status filter, both already present in the parameter descriptions. It doesn't introduce new parameter semantics.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the workflow automations on the current site'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_segments, list_notifications) by naming the exact resource type. It also notes pagination and filtering, which are additional clarifiers.

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 gives clear context and some explicit guidance, especially for include_analytics ('only when the user asks for stats/performance') and status (mirrors dashboard tabs). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but since siblings target different resources, the purpose already implies when to use it.

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