list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the GET endpoint, which suggests read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, side-effect-free, or non-mutating. Minimal details about behavior beyond the return content are given.

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, concise sentence that includes both the action and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary words or jargon, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what is listed (workflows and model versions) and the endpoint. It does not elaborate on return format or caveats, but the output schema covers that, and the lack of annotations is not critical for such a simple list operation.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly adds no parameter-related information, focusing instead on the endpoint and return value.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'supported workflows and current model versions', including the endpoint GET /v1/workflows. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like score_workflow or get_workflow_schema, which focus on individual workflow operations.

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 implies this tool is for discovering available workflows and their model versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives or list any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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