filter_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what the response format is, or what defaults apply. The examples illustrate syntax, not behavioral traits.

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 concise and front-loaded with its purpose. The four JSON examples are compact, relevant, and earn their place by demonstrating valid filter syntax and allowed type values without unnecessary fluff.

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 complex nested filters schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers type filtering but does not enumerate other filterable fields, explain operator/connector semantics, or describe return values. It is workable for the primary use case but incomplete for full self-sufficiency.

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 all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing valid type field values (automations, monitors, exports, evaluators) and showing concrete JSON structures that are not fully enumerated in 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?

The opening sentence 'Filter workflows by type and other fields' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the type examples (automations, monitors, exports, evaluators) make the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list_workflows or explain what 'other fields' means.

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 gives concrete guidance for using the filters parameter with type values, but it lacks explicit when-to-use versus list_workflows/get_workflow and provides no exclusions. Tool-selection context is implied rather than stated.

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