List a community's automations/workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the read quota cost of each page and the bounded nature of all_pages, warning the agent not to treat it as an exhaustive snapshot.

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 operation, then scope, then the quota caveat. 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 8 optional params fully documented in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it never mentions the filtering dimensions (query/status/workflow_type) or how results are consumed relative to get_workflow. It is complete enough to call, but not rich.

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%, including enum meanings and pagination bounds, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description restates all_pages/quota but adds no syntax or default detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a community's automations/workflows'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_workflow, activate_workflow, or duplicate_workflow, so sibling differentiation is left to the name.

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 on when to use this versus get_workflow (single fetch) or the workflow mutation tools. The only usage-adjacent content is the all_pages/quota note, which is a cost warning rather than selection guidance.

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