list_declared_workflows

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

The description adds the behavioral guarantee 'never runs them' beyond the annotations, which already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. This is useful context for the agent, but it does not address pagination or other edge-case behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. There is no wasted text.

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 description covers default behavior, kind variants, and safety, while the output schema handles return values. It lacks explicit pagination details, but for a simple list tool with rich annotations, it is largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It explains the 'kind' parameter by listing values and their effect, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'cursor' beyond their schema titles and defaults. This partial compensation places it at a mid-level.

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 the verb 'Discover' and specifies the resource 'declared workflows', with explicit clarification that it never runs them. This distinguishes it from execution tools like run_experiment and retrieval tools like get_declared_workflow.

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 says 'before planning', implying the appropriate context for use. It also states 'this never runs them', which tells the agent this is a safe read-only discovery operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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