List Workflow Instructions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'bundled' as a minor source hint and does not describe return behavior, pagination, or content format beyond what the annotations provide.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter list tool, though its extreme brevity also reflects the lack of substantive information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description is barely adequate. It omits what a workflow note contains and how it relates to read_workflow_instruction, but the tool's invocation complexity is low enough that an agent could still call it.

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, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to add or omit.

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 'List bundled workflow notes' essentially restates the tool name and title, swapping 'instructions' for 'notes' without explaining what a workflow note is or how it differs from the sibling read_workflow_instruction. No specific scope or content distinction is provided.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative read_workflow_instruction. The agent is left to infer that this lists available notes while the sibling retrieves one, but nothing in the description states that.

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