list_program_modification_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious server-side 'configured workflowid' behavior, describes the returned item fields, and documents date_range filter semantics. It does not mention errors, authentication, or pagination metadata, but for a read-only listing these are relatively minor 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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. There is slight redundancy between the statement that each workflow contains requestId and the Returns line saying the JSON contains a requestId list, but this does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It documents every parameter, defaults, filter values, and returned fields. The only notable gap is that the 'configured workflowid' is not explained in terms of where that configuration lives, but this is minor given the low complexity.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates. It states page_no starts at 1 and defaults to 1, page_size defaults to 20, enumerates all date_range allowed values, and explains that leaving date_range blank disables date filtering.

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 opens with '查询程序修改流程列表' and clarifies that it lists all workflow instances for the configured program-modification workflow type. It gives a clear verb+resource and distinguishes itself from get_program_modification_details by noting each returned item includes a requestId used to fetch details.

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 scope is implied: the tool lists program-modification workflow instances using a configured workflowid, so the use case is inferable. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_my_workflows or list_all_workflows, and no exclusions are stated.

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