list_agent_workflows

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, but 'does not spawn agents' adds domain-specific behavioral context that generic hints do not convey — it preempts the wrong assumption that calling this tool initiates agent work. It still says nothing about return ordering or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a semicolon-delimited clarification; every clause carries information and there is no padding.

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 no-required-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the count and nature of the returned items plus the no-side-effect guarantee. The undocumented query parameter is the one substantive gap.

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?

There is one parameter (query) with a 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication of what the query filters on, whether it is a search term, or that it defaults to empty. A one-param tool at 0% coverage should have its parameter explained in prose, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (discover/list) and resource (six reusable specialist role guides with their tool dependencies), and the count 'six' bounds the result set. It does not name the obvious sibling get_agent_workflow to differentiate single-fetch vs list, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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 clause 'does not spawn agents' implicitly clarifies when this is safe to call (pure discovery, no side effects), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor a pointer to get_agent_workflow for retrieving a single workflow. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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