list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the read operation without mentioning return format, pagination, filtering capabilities, or what a typical response looks like. There's no note about what information is returned (e.g., names, paths, states), leaving the agent uncertain about output.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately minimal for a straightforward listing tool. However, given the sibling confusion risk, a second sentence distinguishing from list_workflow_runs would have been worthwhile without adding bloat.

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?

Has an output schema, so return format is partially covered. But with no annotations, no usage guidance, and a confusing sibling tool, the description is too thin. For a tool with a closely related sibling (list_workflow_runs) and zero annotation coverage, it should provide more context about what 'workflows' means here versus runs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description names the repo context implicitly but doesn't detail the 'owner' parameter or its default ('') behavior. However, the parameter names themselves ('repo', 'owner') are fairly self-explanatory given the tool's GitHub context, which reduces the need for elaboration.

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 states the tool lists GitHub Actions workflows in a repository, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'list_workflow_runs' tool, which could easily be confused with listing workflows themselves. The distinction between workflows (definitions) and workflow runs (executions) is not clarified.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Most notably, there's no clarification of how this differs from 'list_workflow_runs', which is a closely related sibling. The agent must guess whether they want workflow definitions or workflow executions.

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