Get Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the exact filtering rule that determines which workflows appear in the result set, including the two exclusion cases. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first two paragraphs are tight and front-loaded, carrying the scope and exclusions. The third paragraph ('Workflows are the core automation engine of Itential Platform...') is promotional background that does not help an agent decide or invoke, so it dilutes an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, inclusion/exclusion rules, and sibling alternatives, which is everything an agent needs to call a zero-parameter list tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is no parameter syntax to clarify, and the description's filtering language is about server-side result scope rather than caller-supplied arguments, so it neither helps nor harms this dimension.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Get), resource (workflow automations), and a precise scope qualifier (those with an enabled API endpoint trigger). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_automations, get_agents, and expose_workflow, which are named explicitly.

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 gives explicit when-not conditions (disabled endpoint triggers and workflows with no endpoint trigger are excluded) and routes the agent to alternatives by name: 'use get_agents to list agents and get_automations to list automations of every type.' Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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