workflow_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default filter (status='active') and that results are scoped to the current git project, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination/limits, or read-only nature beyond the implied 'List', leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the PROACTIVE guidance, with no redundant filler. Slightly verbose in the 'understand what tasks...' elaboration, but it still earns its place by motivating the proactive call.

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-required-parameter read tool, the definition covers scope, filtering, default status, and invocation timing. The main omission is what a returned entry looks like, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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% and both parameters are enum-constrained with their descriptions and the 'active' default documented in the schema. The description's 'filtered by type and/or status (defaults to active)' restates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 workflow entries') and pins the scope to 'the current git project', plus the filter semantics. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like workflow_log, workflow_done, or list_contexts, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 PROACTIVE sentence gives explicit, actionable context: call at the start of every conversation to load project context. That is a strong when-to-use signal, but no when-not-to-use or alternative routing (e.g., vs. get_context/list_contexts) is offered.

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