list_workflows

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating it scans for YAML files with 'name' and 'jobs' keys, which implies filtering. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden, and this is a moderate effort but lacks explicit safety indicators.

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 description is concise with three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the filtering, and the third clarifies the parameter. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main input and behavior. However, it is silent on whether the search is recursive or handles symlinks. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could be more precise.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the 'directory' parameter is the 'Directory to search for workflow files (default: current directory),' which goes beyond the schema's type and default. This provides the agent with the purpose of the parameter effectively.

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 clearly states 'List workflow YAML files in a directory,' specifying the verb ('list'), resource ('workflow YAML files'), and scope ('in a directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow, run_workflow, or validate_workflow, which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools might be more appropriate. The agent receives no help in deciding between listing workflows and, say, viewing a specific workflow or submitting a job.

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