list_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a list operation but does not mention pagination, limits, required permissions, or what happens if there are no workflows. For a read operation, at minimum it should indicate if the list is exhaustive or paginated.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Despite the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, whether the list is all or filtered, or any limitations. An agent needs more context to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. With no parameters, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all alert workflows'). It is unambiguous and specific, but does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_alert_conditions or list_alert_policies, which have different resource types. A higher score would require mentioning scope or distinguishing features.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include create_workflow, delete_workflow, update_workflow, and other list tools, but the description does not clarify the appropriate context (e.g., 'Use this to view existing workflows before creating or updating them').

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