list_processed_workflows

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a JSON string and mentions arguments; it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, what 'archived' means, or what errors or edge cases to expect.

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 purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The argument details are concise and easy to scan. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the second, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 the output schema exists and all parameters are described, the core invocation details are covered. However, with no annotations and several overlapping sibling tools, the description is missing guidance on alternatives and deeper behavioral context, leaving the agent to infer when this specific list is appropriate.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter: page_no starts at 1, page_size is per-page count, workflow_id defaults to the default configuration when blank, and all_types returns all workflow types when True. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a list of '已办（归档）流程' (processed/archived workflows) and further restricts it to '当前用户已处理' (current user's processed items). This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, but it doesn't explicitly contrast the tool with sibling tools like list_todo_workflows or list_all_workflows.

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 implies the tool is for a current user's processed/archived workflows, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_todo_workflows, list_my_workflows, or list_all_workflows. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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