list-workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains what is returned (structured metadata, pagination controls, links) and implies non-destructive behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and details. No superfluous words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description outlines the return content (metadata, pagination controls, links). It is complete for a list tool, though more details on pagination specifics would help.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the status filter. It does not provide additional details on how parameters affect output.

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 specifies that the tool returns a paginated list of workflow summaries including IDs, names, publication status, draft versions, and navigation links. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-workflow' (single item) and 'publish-workflow' (mutation) by focusing on listing summaries.

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 mentions pagination controls and filtering by publication status, implying usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get-workflow' for a single workflow) or when not to use it.

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