List Wiro workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'graph hidden' rows are protected, still runnable, and clones retain hidden steps with only title/description/tags editable — context an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope split, then the fullSlug handoff, then the hidden-graph caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; the hidden-graph sentence is long but earns its place as non-obvious behavior.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers both scopes, the downstream usage of fullSlug, and the protected-workflow caveat — everything an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the scope parameter (workspace = personal or the team the key's project belongs to) beyond the terse enum text, but the other nine parameters (sort, tags, limit, model, order, start, search, visibility, only_favorites) are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List workflows') and immediately disambiguates the two modes: 'mine' = workspace, 'public' = gallery. It also names the downstream siblings (get_workflow, run_workflow, clone_workflow, update_workflow) that consume the returned fullSlug, so an agent can place it in the workflow lifecycle.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each scope, including a concrete example ('every workflow that uses a given model') for the public gallery. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like get_workflow, but the routing to fullSlug consumers covers most of the decision.

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