workflow.list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful context about durability and cross-chat recovery. It does not describe return shape, ordering, filtering behavior, or any edge cases, but for a read-only list tool the annotation lowers the burden.

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?

One well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation, states the resource, and explains the purpose. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool, the description is mostly adequate, but the sole parameter is undocumented and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape. A little more detail about include_done and the kind of workflow objects returned would make this fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, and the description does not mention include_done at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description fails to clarify what 'done' means in this workflow context, whether the default excludes done items, or how the flag affects the recovered 'active projects.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List durable guided-development workflows.' It immediately clarifies the tool's role and gives a concrete purpose—recovering active projects across chats—so an agent can distinguish it from workflow.start, workflow.advance, and other mutation-oriented siblings.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this tool before asking the user to repeat context, especially across chats. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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