list_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral characteristics such as pagination, contents of the result set, and any potential side effects. It only repeats the purpose and includes a docs link, providing no additional behavioral detail or caveats.

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 a single concise sentence with a docs link, containing no redundant words or fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every element earns its place.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits details about response structure, pagination behavior, and any repository-specific edge cases, relying entirely on the external documentation URL for complete context.

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 description does not explain the role of page and per_page, which lack schema descriptions, nor does it enrich the existing owner/repo semantics. With 50% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters but remains silent.

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 uses the verb 'List' with the resource 'workflows' and the scope 'in a repository,' making the primary function unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_workflow_runs or get_workflow, but the resource distinction is naturally evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workflow_runs or get_workflow. The description lacks any contextual cues, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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