circleci_list_workflows

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds only the pipeline scoping context and says nothing about pagination, result limits, or the shape of the returned workflow list, so it adds minimal value beyond the structured metadata.

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 short sentence with no waste and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse for an agent that needs usage context, but it is structurally efficient.

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 simple, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema is fully documented, but the description says nothing about output format or pagination behavior. For a listing endpoint, that is a noticeable gap even if minor.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that workflows are retrieved for a pipeline, but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows') scoped to a CircleCI pipeline, so the basic operation is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'circleci_get_workflow' or explain that it returns workflows for one pipeline rather than listing pipelines themselves.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus 'circleci_get_workflow', 'circleci_list_jobs', or 'circleci_list_pipelines'. The agent must infer from names alone that this lists workflows belonging to a single pipeline.

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