list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description reasonably focuses on additional behavior. It adds useful context about pagination ('one bounded page at a time') and filtering, which are behavioral traits not captured by the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, resource, pagination behavior, and available filters in about twelve words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and a simple parameter set, the description covers the essentials: optional name/state filters and paged navigation. It does not describe ordering or consistency guarantees of offset pages, but those are not necessary for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly identifies state and name as filters and implies limit/offset through pagination, but it does not explain exact matching semantics, default page size, or how offset behaves. This is adequate with clear gaps.

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 action ('Discover') with a clear resource ('workflows') and adds scope via 'one bounded page at a time' and 'filter by state or name'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_workflow (single workflow) and execute_workflow (mutation).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for discovering or browsing workflows, with optional filtering by state or name and page-based navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use when...', so it falls short of full explicit routing guidance, but the context is clear.

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