List Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it lists only authored workflows and orders them newest first. It also discloses the purpose of recovering workflow_id values. This is valuable context, though it does not detail pagination or output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that conveys the action, scope, ordering, and purpose. There is no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 description is sufficient for a simple list tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema. It explains what is returned in terms of workflow IDs, the ordering, and the use case. It could have explicitly stated the return shape, but the phrase 'recover workflow_id values' implies the output is at least ID-bearing. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% as the single limit parameter is fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 when schema covers everything. It reinforces the order and default behavior implicitly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List workflows you authored, newest first'. It identifies the resource (workflows), the scope (authored), and the ordering. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning use cases for viewing or running workflows, making it unique among the sibling set.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'so you can recover workflow_id values from prior MCP sessions before calling view_workflow or run_workflow'. This tells the agent when to use this tool and why. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_workflow_runs, but the stated purpose is sufficient for most scenarios.

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