List Workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains what the tool does: lists workflows from core and contrib, supports multiple output formats, and notes that 'Only workflows available in this server are listed.' It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but that is implied by the listing nature. It adds significant context beyond mere existence, covering output formats, sources, and included information.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear headers (Output Formats, Workflow Sources, Key Information, When to use, Arguments, Outputs). It front-loads the primary purpose and uses organized sections. While every sentence contributes information, there is some redundancy (e.g., the 'Outputs' section partially duplicates earlier mentions), but overall it is efficient for the level of detail provided.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It details all parameter options, expected return content, sources, and integration context. The agent can select and invoke the tool with full understanding of its behavior and outputs. This is a model of thorough contextual disclosure.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail. For example, it specifies format_type with allowed values ('detailed', 'summary', 'ids_only', 'by_category') and defaults, and similarly describes include_core, include_contrib, and category_filter with usage context. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema, making it highly actionable for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available workflows from core and contrib sources.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('workflows') with scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on workflows (vs indexes, apps, etc.). The detailed breakdown of output formats and sources reinforces purpose clarity.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section with explicit guidance: 'Use when you need to discover which workflows exist before running one' and 'Use to filter by category or get just workflow IDs for programmatic selection.' It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. This is strong but lacks a 'when not to use' clause, so a 4 is appropriate.

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