List user workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: authentication is required and results are restricted to the caller's owned workflows, plus cursor-based pagination behavior is disclosed.

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 in the first sentence, then uses bolded headers and bullets that are easy to scan. Slightly header-heavy for a simple list tool but every block carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers auth scope, pagination, and filtering use cases, which is enough for correct invocation. It could say more about result shape now that no output schema exists, but the essentials are present.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates search and endpoint filtering but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema already states, and it does nothing to clarify the ambiguous 'account' parameter.

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 workflows for the authenticated user') with scoping ('optional search and filtering'), which clearly separates it from create_workflow and get_workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it needs the reader to infer the distinction.

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 concrete contexts (display workflow library, search specific workflows, find workflows using particular models) that map directly to the search and used_endpoint_ids parameters. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the intended usage context is clearly conveyed.

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