List Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results include both published and checked-out version state, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit, default page size, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier and the returned data stated up front; no filler or redundancy.

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 four optional filters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the definition is workable but thin: it does not say what a result record contains beyond version state, nor whether results are paged in a particular way. The schema carries the filter semantics, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 100%, so name, limit, table, and instance are already fully documented in the schema, including the instance/auth-alias fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (legacy Workflow Editor workflows) plus the returned facets (published and checked-out version state). The qualifier 'legacy Workflow Editor' implicitly separates this from the many flow-related siblings (execute_flow, get_flow_definition, outline_workflow), though it never names them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_workflow, outline_workflow, or list_workflow_activity_types. The word 'legacy' hints at the population covered, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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