List workflows

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: accessible scope, update ordering, returned fields, and the access-restriction behavior that causes other ids to be refused.

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, front-loaded with the listing operation and scope, and each sentence contributes useful selection or usage context. It does mention returned fields despite an output schema, but that is brief and helps an agent understand what it will get.

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 zero-parameter list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key missing context: access scope, ordering, returned identifiers, intended usage, and permission-restriction behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not spend space explaining parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list workflows), clarifies access scope (personal and shared via workspace), and gives ordering (most recently updated first). It also distinguishes the tool's role from single-workflow siblings by saying it is the place to find a workflowId.

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 says "Start here to find a workflowId," which gives clear usage context. It also adds a restriction caveat, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one.

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