acc_list_review_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds useful context about the workflow scope (WIP→Shared→Published transitions) and notes that create tools may not cover every option, clarifying that the tool only reflects current configuration.

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?

Three focused, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second provides domain context, and the third explains the practical purpose. No redundancy or filler.

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 is complete for a read-only listing tool: it states what is listed, why the tool exists (workflowId for reviews), and how it relates to creation. With an output schema present and annotations indicating safe read-only behavior, no further detail is needed.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for project_id and active_only with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 document approval workflows with specific detail (steps, reviewers, status labels, copy destination). It distinguishes from related review tools by emphasizing the workflowId needed to start a review and ties it to the ISO 19650 CDE controlled transitions.

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 explains that workflows are created in the ACC UI and that this tool shows existing configurations and provides the workflowId for starting a review. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools directly.

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