wb_list_workflows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return format (JSON array with objects containing name, category, when_to_use) and that it returns only ready-made recipes, which is useful context for agents deciding whether to use this or another tool.

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, with three sentences that each carry weight: what it does, what it returns, and how to proceed to get details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately points to the sibling tool.

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?

Given zero parameters (no schema complexity) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the output looks like (JSON with name, category, when_to_use) and directs them to wb_get_workflow for details, covering all necessary information for correct invocation and usage.

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 parametersanding schema coverage is 100% (n/a), the description clearly explains the return structure and the purpose. Even though there are no parameters to document, the description compensates by clarifying what the returned JSON contains, which is essential for the agent to use the output.

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 lists ready-made analytical workflows (recipes) for the marketplace, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling wb_get_workflow by noting that get_workflow fetches the full plan for one workflow, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 says to use {svc}_get_workflow to fetch the full step-by-step plan for one workflow, providing clear routing to the alternative. It does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when a specific workflow is needed), but the context is clear enough for a listing tool.

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