list_todo_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns a JSON string and explains the all_types filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, pagination semantics, or error behavior. This is adequate for a read-style list tool but not fully transparent.

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 logically structured: a direct headline, a fuller purpose statement, parameter explanations, and a return note. There is minor redundancy between the first line and the second, but the overall structure is clear and 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?

For a straightforward list tool with four optional parameters and an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It would be more complete with explicit selection guidance against sibling tools, but the core calling context is adequately addressed.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: page_no starts at 1, page_size is items per page, workflow_id is a template ID with default behavior, and all_types changes filtering behavior. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 a specific action and scope: '获取当前用户待处理的流程列表' (get the current user's pending workflow list). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_processed_workflows and list_all_workflows by the 'pending/current user' framing, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate those siblings.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over list_my_workflows, list_processed_workflows, list_all_workflows, or other siblings. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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