List all workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the authenticated user, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether the filter params narrow results.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with the action. The second sentence largely restates the first plus the endpoint metadata, adding little, but the overall text is efficient with no rambling.

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 read-only list tool with an already-annotated safety profile this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could describe the returned workflow shape or the effect of the filter parameters, and it does neither.

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 all six optional filter fields (id, name, enabled, logging, trigger, description) documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how these filters behave, so the baseline 3 applies; there is a mild tension in that the tool is framed as 'list all' while exposing filters.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('List all workflows') and reiterates it as retrieving workflows for the authenticated user, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself implicitly from immich_get_workflow (single retrieval), but never explicitly differentiates from the get/create/delete/update workflow siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as immich_get_workflow or immich_get_workflow_triggers. The only contextual hint is 'available to the authenticated user', which implies auth scoping but not usage conditions.

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