list_workflow_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds 'optional pagination' which is a minor behavioral detail already captured in the schema. No additional context about return format or filtering behavior is provided, but since annotations cover the read-only nature, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, compact sentence with no fluff. The core purpose ('List all workflow actions') is front-loaded, and the pagination note is concise. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list endpoint with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the action and implies the result is a list. It could mention the response structure or any default pagination behavior, but that's not strictly necessary given the low complexity and the presence of a read-only annotation.

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?

Both parameters (page, page_size) are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and constraints. The description merely summarizes them as 'optional pagination', adding no meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'workflow actions' precisely, clearly distinguishing from sibling list tools like list_documents or list_workflows. The scope 'all' is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what this endpoint does.

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 implies this tool is for browsing all workflow actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over get_workflow_action or other related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so agents must infer the appropriate context.

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