List workflows

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the returned fields (status, trigger, current version, agent_id) and the ownership constraint (only the owning agent can edit/run). This goes beyond the annotation but does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or ordering.

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 three sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides relevant information without redundancy, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, filtering options, and the ownership concept. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect and when to use it.

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 schema already documents the agent_id parameter with full coverage. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'none' (unassigned workflows created here or in the web app) and reinforcing that the parameter is optional, thereby enhancing the schema's meaning.

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 owned by the authenticated account, specifies the returned fields (status, trigger, version, agent_id), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workflow (single item) and create_workflow (creation). The verb 'list' is specific to the resource and scope.

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 context on when to use the tool: to list workflows owned by the account, with filtering by agent_id. It also explains the 'none' option for unassigned workflows. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to siblings like get_workflow or list_workflow_executions.

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