danceflow_list_workflows

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by saying what the listing returns (summaries, coverage, the follow-up call to read each procedure) and that it does not execute anything, but it says nothing about pagination defaults, result-size limits, or what happens when no workflows are configured.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core capability and appends the return-content detail. The semicolon-chained clauses get dense toward the end, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter behavior for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, which the description does not fill.

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 carries the whole burden for four parameters, and it largely fails: 'query' and 'component' are never mentioned, and 'pagination' gestures at limit/offset without explaining ordering, defaults, or the meaning of the offset/limit pair. Only a vague hint is added beyond the bare schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('workflow guides and WorkflowMoves skill recipes') with a clear scope qualifier: no IDs needed. That implicitly separates it from danceflow_get_workflow, though the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it.

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?

It states one clear selecting condition ('without knowing their IDs') and one boundary ('does not execute them'). It never names danceflow_get_workflow or danceflow_search as the alternatives, so an agent must infer which of the many lookup tools to choose when an ID or search term is available.

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