List workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context beyond annotations: it notes that workflows cannot be created via API, clarifies that the API only lists existing workflows, and indicates the output contains workflow ids for downstream use. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first states the main purpose, and the second provides an important note about creation limitations and a downstream usage tip. No fluff or irrelevant details. The most critical information (the listing action) is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is clearly separated.

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 operation with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the action, scope, a limitation (can't create via API), and downstream usage. It doesn't describe the response structure in detail (e.g., whether all workflows are returned or paginated), but given the simplicity and the mention of 'returned workflow ids,' an agent can reasonably infer the output shape. The main missing piece is response format, but it's not critical for correctness.

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 input schema has one parameter, locationId, with a description that covers its meaning (GHL Location ID, defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description mentions 'in a location,' which aligns with the schema. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema 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 clearly states the action: 'List the automation workflows configured in a location.' It is specific about the resource (automation workflows) and scope (location). It also distinguishes from related siblings like ghl_add_contact_to_workflow by mentioning the returned workflow ids are used with that tool, clarifying that this tool is for listing, not triggering.

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 provides a clear usage directive: 'Use the returned workflow ids with ghl_add_contact_to_workflow to trigger automations.' This tells the agent when and how to use the output. It also implies this tool is read-only (workflows must be built in UI, API cannot create them), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool relative to other list tools, but given the specific resource, it's implied.

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