archery_list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions permission-based scoping and pagination, but fails to disclose other behaviors such as response format, sorting, rate limits, or implications of the search parameter. Safety profile is unaddressed.

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 front-loaded sentence without wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently, fitting the conciseness criterion despite being under-specified in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation, but the description leaves gaps: search semantics, pagination details, and permission behavior are implied but not elaborated. An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, yet the description is still minimally adequate.

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%, and the description does not compensate. Limit and offset are somewhat inferred from names, but 'search' is ambiguous—unclear whether it filters by ID, title, or content. No parameter meanings are clarified.

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 the verb ('paginated query') and resource ('SQL workorders') with a scope ('current account has permission to view'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type (workflows vs instances/databases), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_detail or workflow_status. The description implies a list operation, but there are no explicit use-case instructions or exclusions.

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