List Workflow Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, filter semantics, or result scope. With annotations carrying the profile, minimal disclosure still leaves a gap for a 15-parameter listing tool.

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?

Brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. The single four-word phrase is appropriately front-loaded but carries none of the detail a 15-param listing tool requires.

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 15 parameters at 7% schema coverage, an output schema that does not need explanation, and a crowded sibling set, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 7% across 15 parameters; only workflow_id is documented in the schema. The description says nothing about the 14 filters, pagination params, or the 'include' selector, so an agent cannot infer their syntax (notably filter_name_in vs filter_name_eq string formats) from either source.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus get_workflow_task, list_workflows, or list_workflow_runs. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance of any kind.

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