List workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint (server version compatibility), but says nothing about pagination or result size for what is presumably a list endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource ahead of the version caveat. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential is missing. The absence of an output schema leaves a small gap (return shape, pagination), but the tool name and description make the payload self-evident.

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 100% and both owner and repo are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'defined in a repository' reinforces the scoping but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Actions workflows defined in a repository'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or distinguish itself from related siblings such as dispatch_workflow or list_action_tasks, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 version note '(Forgejo 11+/Gitea 1.24+)' is a useful applicability condition, implying when the tool will work. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to dispatch_workflow for triggering or list_action_tasks for runs.

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