list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose details such as whether subdirectories are recursively searched, file extensions filtered, or what happens if the directory is missing. This is acceptable for a simple list but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 that efficiently conveys the essential action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of a list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's behavior. It could optionally mention whether the list is sorted or includes file schemas, but the core purpose is clear and complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden. The schema is empty and the description does not need to explain any inputs, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'API-format workflow files' with the location 'workflows directory'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like describe_workflow or run_workflow by focusing on listing files, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 usage context is implied: this tool lists available workflow files, presumably for discovery before running or describing them. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models or describe_workflow, and no exclusions are stated.

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