List saved workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: each workflow "runs on demand without live browsing" and the response enumerates id, name, declared inputs, schedule, and pinned-tool status.

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 tightly written clauses: purpose/scope first, then the return contract. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the execution model (on-demand, no live browsing), which an agent needs to decide follow-up actions. It omits only routing guidance to alternative list tools.

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% for the single optional `search` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the filter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ("List the workflows saved in your Writ account") and clarifies the scope relative to live-browsing siblings. It does not name a specific alternative sibling (e.g. writ_workflow_runs vs writ_list_workflows), so differentiation is contextual rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool lists saved workflows, so an agent can infer this is the discovery step before running or pinning one. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer routing against siblings like writ_workflow_runs and writ_saved_crawls.

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