list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results depend on edition/license/permissions and may silently come back as an empty list or 404 rather than an error, which an agent must know to interpret null results. No return shape or pagination details, though.

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?

Two tight sentences with the caveat front-loaded before the endpoint, no filler. Slightly compressed to the point that the listing semantics are left implicit.

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?

A read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description should at least signal what comes back or whether results are paginated. It covers availability risk but not return shape or ordering, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to consume the results.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema gives only type and minimum. The description partially compensates by exposing the route GET /project/{project_id}/workflows, which implies project_id scopes the listing to one project, but it adds nothing about valid values, format, or behavior for invalid IDs.

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?

"Get workflows" names the resource and the plural hints at a listing, but it essentially restates the tool name rather than stating a distinct verb+scope. It never distinguishes this from get_workflow (single) or list_workflow_runs, both of which sit right next to it in the sibling set.

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 availability caveat (edition, license, permissions) and the warning that some Community routes return 404 or empty lists is useful context for when this call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over get_workflow or list_workflow_runs, and no prerequisites for project_id are stated beyond the endpoint path.

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