keep_list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. What the description does add is the legacy status of the underlying endpoint, which is real context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It still says nothing about rate limits, result size, or whether the endpoint might stop working.

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, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, with zero padding. The deprecation note is the longest part and is arguably tangential to invocation, but it is at least a single clause an agent can act on rather than filler.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with no parameters and, importantly, no output schema, so the description is the only place the agent could learn what comes back. It never describes the return shape or whether results are paginated or capped. For a simple tool the bar is low, but the one thing a caller most needs is missing.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and nothing in the text contradicts the 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 first two words, "List workflows", state the verb and resource, and the endpoint "GET /workflows" confirms it. Beyond that the description gives no scope (filters, pagination, what a workflow object contains), so an agent knows roughly what it retrieves but not the extent of the result.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus anything else. The closest is a remark that the underlying GET is slated for deprecation in favor of POST /workflows/query, but that names no sibling tool and gives no condition that would change which tool the agent picks. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer or avoid this call.

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