List GHL Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds 'all' and 'location' context, but it does not disclose potential pagination, response format, or behavior when locationId is omitted. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 of seven words. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundant information.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. However, the description lacks details about response format or behavior without locationId, which could lead to incorrect assumptions. Some additional context on return values or locationId handling would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'for a location,' which explains the locationId parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't note that the parameter is optional (per schema) or what happens if it's not provided, leaving a semantic gap.

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 'Get all workflows/automations for a location' uses a specific verb (get/list) and clearly identifies the resource (workflows/automations), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like ghl_list_pipelines and ghl_list_campaigns by naming the exact entity type.

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?

Usage is implied: it's the tool for retrieving workflows for a location. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or special conditions. The 'for a location' clause hints at the scope but doesn't clarify optionality or fallback behavior.

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