gold_ghl_workflows_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds useful context about output fields and access prerequisites ('BYOK', 'PAID ONLY $39'). However, it does not mention potential errors, missing location_id behavior, or data scope beyond naming workflows.

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 very compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the operation and its core use, and the following fragments add access constraints. Every part adds value with no redundant filler.

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's low complexity, the description covers purpose, return-content hints, and access prerequisites. However, it leaves the location_id parameter unexplained, does not clarify whether it is optional, and does not define what 'stats' means. This is adequate but not complete.

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 schema has one location_id parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description never mentions location_id, how it should be used, or whether omitting it is allowed. The parameter name provides minimal self-evident meaning, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List workflows (name/status/stats)'. It also states the purpose, helping the AI know what automation fires before touching contacts, which clearly separates this listing tool from action-oriented siblings like gold_ghl_workflow_bulk_enroll.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: before touching contacts, so the AI knows what automations may fire. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' bar.

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