list_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description complements this by adding context about the source of custom templates (~/.vmware/workflows/*.yaml) and the exact return structure, including active_workflows for passing to get_workflow_status. No contradictions with annotations. The behavior is transparent for a read-only listing tool.

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 front-loaded with a bracketed '[READ]' and a one-line purpose statement. It then provides just enough context: usage flow, custom template path, and return structure. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition. The three short paragraphs are well-structured and scannable.

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 fully explains the returned dict's keys (builtin, custom, active_workflows) and how to use the active_workflows IDs. It also includes enough sibling context (plan_workflow, create_workflow, get_workflow_status) to make the tool's place in the workflow clear. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, this is 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but it compensates by thoroughly detailing the return value, which is the only meaningful information an agent needs for invocation.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'List all available workflow templates (built-in + custom).' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning this as the first step and directing to plan_workflow or create_workflow based on the result, making its purpose unambiguous relative to other workflow tools.

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 guidance is explicit: 'Use this first to see whether a template already covers the goal, then pass its name to plan_workflow; if none fit, use create_workflow instead.' It also explains the custom template file path, which informs when custom templates might appear, giving the agent clear decision-making context.

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