ds_list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the default paginated API, auto-fallback to simple-list on failure, case-insensitive fuzzy matching, and the effect of use_simple on underlying SQL. This gives agents a strong understanding of behavior beyond the basic list 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 well-structured with a clear opening, version note, bullet points for behaviors, and an Args section. Slight redundancy exists between bullet points and Args (e.g., search and name are described twice), but the overall organization is logical and front-loaded with the essential verb+resource.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavior and parameters thoroughly. It even hints at return shape ('single-element list or empty list' for exact match) and mentions pagination. Missing details like exact response fields or error behaviors are minor given the tool's relatively straightforward list nature.

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?

Input schema provides zero description coverage (only titles and defaults). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with its semantics, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'page_no: Page number, starting at 1', 'search: Fuzzy search keyword (name + description)', 'use_simple: Use simple-list endpoint when True'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'List workflow definitions with pagination, search and exact-match support', which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It also mentions it merged ds_list_workflows_simple and ds_get_workflow_by_name, clearly distinguishing its functionality 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 provides clear guidance on when to use each parameter (search for fuzzy match, name for exact match, use_simple for bypassing pagination SQL) and explains default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus a sibling like ds_get_workflow or ds_list_workflow_versions, so it's not fully explicit about alternatives.

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