list_pending_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation through 'List' and notes the Langflow version (1.11.x), but does not state read-only status, auth requirements, rate limits, return format, or any side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the scoping requirement and version context. Every element earns its place with 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?

Given the simple list-only tool with one fully-described parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and required input adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral details like pagination, response shape, or safety profile that an agent might need for confident invocation.

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%, with the single flow_id parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description only repeats that the flow ID is required, adding no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, 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 names a specific verb (List), resource (pending human-in-the-loop requests), and scope (for a required flow ID), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or state what it is not, so it falls short of the 5-level distinction that requires explicit sibling differentiation.

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 mentions a required flow ID, which is a prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workflow_result, get_workflow_events, or resume_workflow. It does not state when-not to use it or describe typical scenarios.

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