List user workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the ownership scoping ('Returns only workflows owned by the authenticated user') and cursor-based pagination behavior, which the agent cannot read from 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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then organizes the rest under labeled sections with no filler. There is mild redundancy between the Features and Common Use Cases bullets (search and endpoint filtering are essentially repeated), which keeps it from a 5.

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 5 optional params fully described in the schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials plus auth scoping and pagination. No output schema exists, so it need not explain return values, though it could have noted what a workflow record contains.

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 the schema already documents limit, cursor, search, account, and used_endpoint_ids. The description restates the search and endpoint-filter semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('List workflows') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which distinguishes it from collection-wide listers. It does not explicitly name its closest sibling get_workflow or otherwise call out the single-vs-many distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'Common Use Cases' section gives implied usage (displaying a library, searching, finding workflows by model), which is real guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-not conditions and never names the alternative tool (e.g., get_workflow for a single item), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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