List workflow methods

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so "Free and read-only" adds nothing. However, the description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing result content: four B1 methods use native executors while website-proof-demo and kinetic-launch are execution_blocked, and that availability must not be confused with purchasing permission. That is real behavioral context an annotation cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load what is returned, with no padding or repetition across sentences. "Free and read-only" is mildly redundant against the annotations, but it is a single clause and the piece remains tight overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so adequately: a set of six methods, their availability states, executor type, and which are execution_blocked. It does not specify the exact field structure or ordering of the returned list, but for a parameterless read-only discovery call the coverage is sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter syntax to explain; the baseline for parameterless tools is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted, consistent with the empty 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 description gives a specific verb and resource ("List six workflow methods") plus a scope/result hint ("their current availability"). It is clearly a discovery/list tool, distinct from the get_* siblings in intent, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings (get_workflow, get_workflow_plan), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering which workflow methods exist before calling get_workflow or prepare_workflow_plan, but the description never states when to use it versus those alternatives. The caveat "Availability is not account-specific permission to buy" guides interpretation of results rather than invocation choice.

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