List deployed tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it only returns MCP-Tool-triggered deployments, and plan limits may truncate results with a count reported in the response — an agent would otherwise misread a short list as complete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the usage hint and the truncation caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still summarizes the payload shape (name, description, argument schema). Combined with the plan-limit caveat and the follow-up tool reference, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. No misleading parameter talk is introduced.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus a precisely scoped resource: workflows deployed with an MCP Tool trigger, i.e. callable as tools. It also states what each entry contains (tool name, description, argument schema), which separates it cleanly from the sibling list_workflows.

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?

Explicitly names the intended scenario (find a workflow deployed after you connected) and routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling, call_deployed_workflow. That is a when-to-use plus an alternative in a single sentence.

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