roboflow_workflow_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action 'List available...' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or what the response contains. For a list operation, read-only behavior is implied, but the description adds no extra context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff, redundant information, or unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core action but does not specify what information the returned list contains (e.g., workflow names, IDs) or the response format. Given the simplicity and the fact that the schema covers the input, the description is adequate but could be slightly richer for full completeness.

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 fully documents the single parameter `workspace` with a clear description ('Workspace ID. Defaults to the API key owner's workspace.'). The tool description does not mention this parameter or add any additional semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra value in this dimension.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available Roboflow Workflows' with the scope 'in a workspace.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like roboflow_workflow_run (which executes workflows) and roboflow_project_list (which lists projects). The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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: it is used to list available workflows in a workspace. It implies the use case of inspecting existing workflows before running them, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'For running a workflow, use roboflow_workflow_run'). Since the context is evident and no exclusions are needed, this is slightly above average.

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