ozon_list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only listing behavior, the optional category filter, and adds a useful nuance: 'categories in the response always lists every value present in the catalogue.' This goes beyond the bare operation and gives the agent a clearer model of the tool's 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 structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief explanatory paragraph about workflows, a pointer to the sibling tool, and a structured Args section. The category list is somewhat long but necessary, and every sentence contributes a useful detail.

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 and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, filtering behavior, category values, and the sibling tool for deeper details. It doesn't explicitly mention the absence of required parameters or error handling, but 'optional' and the provided category list imply this well enough.

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 fully explain the parameter. It does: category is described as optional, its allowed values are enumerated, and the filtering behavior is specified. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 statement: 'List all curated workflows, optionally filtered by category.' It identifies the resource (curated workflows) and the action (list), and distinguishes itself from the sibling ozon_get_workflow by explaining that the sibling fetches the full plan. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 for when to use this tool ('List all curated workflows') and explicitly routes the agent to ozon_get_workflow when a full plan is needed. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or when not to use it, but the sibling differentiation and category filter behavior provide adequate guidance.

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