list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavior of yaml workflows appearing only after first build, but lacks details on authentication, pagination, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences (28 words) with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then provides return info, a cross-reference, and a limitation. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to use results, and a caveat. Minor gap: output structure not explicitly confirmed (e.g., array of objects), but still mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add significant semantics beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional format or usage details for app_id.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'workflows for an application', and specifies what is returned (names and IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on workflows and mentions a specific use case with trigger_build.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned ID in trigger_build and notes a limitation (yaml-defined workflows appear only after first build). While it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with siblings, the context is clear and helpful.

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