whodb_platform_workflow_list

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's one added behavioral note — per-call workspace targeting 'without changing defaults' — is genuine context, but it largely restates what the workspace schema field already says ('Does not change the default host'), and it says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence leans on the schema's workspace documentation, so it is slightly redundant, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete for a read-only list tool. The remaining gap is routing: it never clarifies its relationship to workflow_get/workflow_recipe, and result volume/pagination behaviour is 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 nested workspace fields already document host/org/project semantics and the session-default fallback chain, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'for per-call targeting without changing defaults' adds emphasis but no new syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('List persisted hosted WhoDB workflow plans') scoped to a workspace, which is clearly distinct from mutating siblings like workflow_apply. However, it never distinguishes itself from workflow_get or workflow_recipe, so an agent must open the schemas to know why it should list rather than fetch or recipe-plan.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (workflow_get, workflow_recipe, workflow_plan). 'For the selected workspace' only implies that a session default exists; nothing tells the agent when listing is preferable to retrieving a specific plan.

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