ym_list_workflows

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the return format (JSON array of objects with name, category, and when_to_use), which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotation. No hidden side effects or special constraints are mentioned, but none appear to exist.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the marketplace scope, the output format, and the pointer to the follow-up tool. No filler, no redundant restatement.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, what the entries look like, and how to proceed when more detail is needed. The companion get_workflow tool is also referenced, making the API surface navigable.

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 tool has zero parameters Secret, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and the return fields are described enough to make the output meaningful.

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 clear verb-object structure ('List ready-made analytical workflows') and scopes it precisely to 'this marketplace', differentiating it from tools like wb_list_workflows. It also distinguishes itself from the related get_workflow operation by positioning the latter as the fetch-full-details counterpart.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use {svc}_get_workflow when a full step-by-step plan is needed, which creates useful routing guidance. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you only need an overview' or list other alternative tools, but the contrast with get_workflow is clear enough.

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