list_workflows

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, result limits, permissions, or what exactly is returned. For an unannotated tool, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and no nested objects, and the schema fully documents the parameter, so the description does not need to explain inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description would benefit from noting that the result is a list of workflows and whether pagination or additional options apply.

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% and the single parameter account_id is already described in the schema. The description's phrase 'for an account' merely restates that scope and adds no extra formatting, constraints, or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 the specific action (List), resource (Workers Workflows), and scope (an account). The title is null, so the description provides the primary semantic signal and clearly identifies the tool as an account-scoped list operation, distinct from related workflow-instance tools.

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 only usage signal is 'for an account,' which just mirrors the required account_id parameter. There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_workflow_instances, get_workflow, or list_workers, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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