aap_list_workflow_templates

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

The description discloses that the return value is a JSON string with a count and workflow template list, which is useful. It also indicates that the params object handles pagination and filtering. However, it does not elaborate on search semantics, pagination behavior, or other operational details. Since annotations already flag this as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds modest context beyond 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 extremely concise, consisting of a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args/Returns block. There is no redundancy or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the purpose, return format, and the high-level parameter purpose. However, it omits details like how search filtering works, pagination defaults, and error scenarios. While the output schema (not shown here) may compensate, the description alone provides only a basic, though not incomplete, picture.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the nested fields, so the description's line 'params (ListWFTInput): Pagination and filter' provides high-level meaning for the parameter. It does not explain individual fields like page or search, but the schema already provides names, types, defaults, and constraints. The description offers minimal added value beyond 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 description begins with 'List AAP workflow job templates', which clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (workflow job templates). This differentiates it from the sibling tool aap_list_job_templates, which lists regular job templates, by explicitly naming the workflow aspect.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like aap_list_job_templates. Usage is implied by the resource name, but there is no mention of when to choose this tool, any exclusions, or recommended alternative tools. The absence of explicit guidance makes it merely adequate.

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