list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the selection-policy semantics, states that ccc-mcp (not the agent) chooses in 'fixed'/'auto' modes, and instructs the agent to tell the user which workflow it chose and why.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then moves to the selection guidance, so every sentence carries operational value. The prose is slightly dense and the nested clauses about modes are a touch awkward, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the remaining gap: what the selection modes mean and which tool consumes the chosen id. Little else is needed, aside from an explicit statement of when not to call it.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains project_id as the id returned by list_projects. The description adds only that workflows are scoped to a project, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond structured data; 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?

The description names a concrete verb+resource implicitly (list workflows for a project) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: id, name, ordered steps, which is selected, and workflow_selection. That specificity lets an agent distinguish it from settings-oriented siblings like get_project_settings or list_projects without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit decision rules tied to the workflow_selection value: when 'pm', pick the workflow that fits the task and pass its id to start_project_request; when 'fixed' or 'auto', do not choose. What's missing is a direct statement of when to call list_workflows itself versus other discovery tools, though the routing to start_project_request is clear.

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