list_workflows

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

The description fully discloses the classification mechanism, output contents, and the important limitation that workflows are treated as labelled declaration sets rather than execution paths. It also notes the 50-workflow limit and the Uncategorized grouping, leaving no ambiguity about side effects or behavior.

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 slightly long but every sentence adds meaningful information about behavior, limitations, and output. It is well-structured and free of redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what it operates on, what it returns, how classification works, and its key limitation. It also specifies a result count limit, making the expected response clear.

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 no parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing additional for the description to document. The description's mention of output fields and constraints compensates for the lack of parameter detail.

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 that the tool groups repository nodes into semantic domains and returns per-workflow counts, risk aggregates, and hypotheses. It distinguishes this from deeper execution analysis by explicitly noting that it does not traverse the call graph.

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 clear context about what the tool returns and its limitations, such as the weighted keyword vote and lack of call-graph traversal. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the behavior is specific enough to guide appropriate use.

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