is_list_my_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists workflows and shows pending actions and due dates, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), or discuss authentication requirements. The name implies a safe read operation, but more clarity would improve transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the key action. However, it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability, especially given multiple parameters.

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 the core functionality and hints at output (pending actions, due dates), but with no output schema, it should describe the return format. It also does not address edge cases (e.g., empty results, error handling). For a tool with four parameters and many siblings, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is low (25%), yet the description adds little value beyond the schema. It mentions filtering by status and workflow type but does not elaborate on the enums or explain the assignee and limit parameters. The assignee parameter has a schema description, but the others lack context. The description should compensate for the sparse 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 clearly states the tool lists workflows assigned to a user or team, with filtering by status and type. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (workflows), distinguishing it from siblings like is_get_workflow (single workflow) or is_advance_workflow (modification).

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 implies use for listing assigned workflows but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that is_get_workflow should be used for a single workflow or that is_get_workflow_logs is for logs. Sibling tools are numerous, so guidance would be helpful.

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