workflows_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a safety note explaining that mutating operations are unsupported, implying a read-only nature. But it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or the exact scope of 'workflows' (e.g., all workflows for a product vs. filtered subsets).

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and a relevant safety note in the second. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose and the safety limitation. However, given four parameters and no annotations, it lacks important context about filter/limit semantics and when to use this tool versus the closely related workflows_get tool. This leaves some gaps for an agent evaluating the tool.

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 provides no additional meaning for the parameters (limit, filters, include, product_id). Product_id is implied by the mention of 'product,' but the optional parameters remain semantically unclear. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 function: 'List workflows for an Xcode Cloud product.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'), and the product scoping is explicit. It also distinguishes itself from mutation operations, which helps separate it from potential sibling tools.

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 indicates the tool is for listing only and notes that 'Create/update/delete operations are not supported for safety,' providing an exclusion that guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., workflows_get for retrieving a single workflow) or mention when to prefer this over other listing tools.

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