list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavior of family deduplication and the preference for drafts over committed versions. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, or potential errors, but for a simple list operation, the disclosed behavior adds significant value.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then adds the necessary deduplication detail. No redundant or filler words; every clause earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity and that the schema documents both parameters, the description is quite complete. It explains the key behavior (family deduplication) that would otherwise be unknown. It does not explain return fields or pagination details, but with no output schema and a straightforward list operation, the absence is not a critical gap.

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 covers both parameters (page, page_size) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 action: 'List workflow families in your organization.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflow families'), and explains the deduplication behavior (each family appears once, preferring the editable draft). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflow_versions and filter_workflows.

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 about what is returned (workflow families, not all versions) which implies when to use this tool versus listing versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the dedup logic gives enough usage guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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