List workflows of a Tracker queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations lack: the return is a map keyed by workflow id mapping to the issue types that follow each workflow. It says nothing about auth requirements or pagination, but for a simple read that is acceptable.

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 sentence with zero filler that front-loads what the tool returns. Nothing redundant with the title or 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return structure, which is the one thing an agent could not get from the structured fields. For a one-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient; only the routing between it and the other tracker_workflows_* tools is left unstated.

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% and the single queue_id parameter is already documented with both accepted formats (case-sensitive key like TEST, or numeric id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: 'the workflows a queue uses', distinguishing it from the sibling tracker_workflows_list (global) and tracker_workflows_get. It also explains the shape of the result (map from workflow id to issue types). The verb is implied by the name rather than stated, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as tracker_workflows_list for a global listing or tracker_workflows_get for a single workflow. The agent must infer the queue-scoped use case from the name alone; nothing states prerequisites or when this is the right call.

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