list_declared_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the specific guarantee that calling it 'never runs' the workflows and clarifies the default vs. filtered listing behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful context beyond the hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and safety guarantee come first, then the parameter usage in one short block. No redundant sentences or restatements of the schema.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete: it covers the operation's purpose, safety, and kind selector. It falls slightly short only by not spelling out limit/cursor pagination behavior, though the schema defaults and names make it recoverable.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does explain kind ('Pass kind='experiment' or kind='fault_experiment'') and the default workloads. However, limit and cursor are not described beyond their schema names/defaults, leaving a modest gap for pagination semantics.

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 action ('Discover declared workflows before planning') and resource, and immediately separates itself from execution tools with 'this never runs them.' It also makes the default behavior and kind-filter behavior explicit, so an agent can distinguish this listing operation from plan/run siblings.

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 states when to use the tool ('before planning') and contrasts it with running workflows, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_declared_workflow for a single workflow or state exclusion conditions. The 'Pass kind=...' guidance gives practical selection criteria.

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