List workflow actions

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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for added value is lower. The description still contributes: 'across all workflows' reveals the global scope (no per-workflow filter exists), and the full parameter warns about verbose payloads ('Triggers carry 27 fields and actions 34'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first states scope, the second states purpose. The core information is front-loaded before the use case, and every word earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and a complete annotation set, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is minor: nothing clarifies how actions differ from triggers when a caller is choosing between list_workflow_actions and list_workflow_triggers. With no output schema, a brief note on what an 'action definition' contains would round it out, but the auditing purpose partially covers this.

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 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter detail. The schema's parameter descriptions are strong — full even names an alternative tool and quantifies payload size — but that credit belongs to the schema, not the description. The description neither compensates for nor detracts from the schema's coverage.

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 resource and scope precisely: 'Action definitions across all workflows' — an agent knows it lists workflow action definitions globally. The auditing line adds intent ('what gets assigned automatically'). However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling list_workflow_triggers, so the difference between actions and triggers is left to inference.

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 description gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for auditing what gets assigned automatically.' The full parameter description adds routing guidance, telling the agent 'get_workflow is usually the better way' when details of a specific rule are needed. This is good, but the exclusion is scoped to the full-parameter decision rather than the tool as a whole, and no sibling like list_workflow_triggers is contrasted.

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