list_workflows

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

No annotations are present, and the description only mentions 'for the authenticated user', implying authentication is required. It does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral insight.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context. It omits the effect of the filter parameter, what the returned data looks like, and when to prefer this tool over related siblings. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

The input schema fully describes the 'filter' parameter with an enum and description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists workflows for the authenticated user, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_clusters and get_workflow. However, the filter parameter also supports 'apps', creating slight ambiguity about whether the tool lists apps as well.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workflow or run_workflow. The description lacks any context on typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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