list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset params but not described), or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with multiple parameters, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, every word serves a purpose in stating the basic function.

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?

For a list operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'workflow' entails in ServiceNow context, how results are structured, or provide any behavioral context. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter names and default values in the schema without semantic guidance.

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 description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage (the schema's descriptions are in the properties, not the overall schema). With 5 parameters (active, limit, name, offset, query) completely undocumented in the description, and no context about how filtering works (e.g., 'name' uses contains matching), this fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 'List workflows from ServiceNow' states the basic action (list) and resource (workflows) but lacks specificity about scope or format. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_versions' or 'get_workflow_details', leaving the agent to infer differences. The purpose is clear but vague about what exactly is being listed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_details' for specific workflows or 'list_workflow_versions' for version listings. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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