neurover_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (id, name), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior for the page parameter, account scoping, or result ordering — the traits an agent would still need.

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, front-loading the resource and return fields before the search hint; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter paged list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the search behavior, which is the core. It still omits pagination semantics and account scoping, so an agent could call it but might misuse paging or multi-account selection.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only explains search (name matching). The page and account parameters are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters opaque.

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?

"Список полотен (id, название)" states a specific verb (list) and resource (workflows/canvases) and even names the returned fields. It does not differentiate from siblings like neurover_workflow_graph or neurover_create_workflow, and the term "полотен" is a loose match for the tool's 'workflows' name, so an agent must infer they are the same entity.

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?

"Поиск по названию через search" implies how to use the tool for name lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as neurover_workflow_graph (inspect one workflow) or neurover_accounts. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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