list_my_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format as a JSON string and explains the all_types parameter's effect. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, ordering, or explicitly confirm read-only status, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear Args section. The first sentence '获取我的请求流程列表' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the following sentence adds meaningful scope, so there is only minor waste.

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 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and multiple sibling list tools, the description provides adequate parameter semantics and return information. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and behavioral caveats, but an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values in detail.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: page_no starts at 1, page_size controls count, workflow_id defaults to a configured template when empty, and all_types=true returns all workflow types. This goes well beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取当前用户发起的流程列表' (get workflows initiated by the current user). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_all_workflows, list_todo_workflows, and list_processed_workflows by defining the exact scope.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when the current user's own initiated workflows are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it among the sibling list tools.

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