list-workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List workflows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated (though schema suggests pagination), or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a straightforward listing operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'workflow' means in GitHub context, what information is returned, how results are structured, or how this differs from related workflow operations. For a tool in a rich GitHub API context with many alternatives, more contextual information would be helpful.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'GitHub repository' which aligns with the owner/repo parameters, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 workflows in a GitHub repository' clearly states the action (list) and resource (workflows in a GitHub repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list-workflow-runs' or 'trigger-workflow', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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. With siblings like 'list-workflow-runs' and 'trigger-workflow' available, there's no indication of when this listing function is appropriate versus those other workflow-related operations. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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