list_templatesRetrieve all workflow templates from the repository, including version, description, and executability status. Use this to determine which templates are available and runnable.
列出 workflow-templates 仓库中所有可用的工作流模板（含版本、描述、是否可执行）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned fields (version, description, executability), implying a safe read-only listing, but never states absence of side effects, permissions, or ordering/pagination 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the scope and the useful output fields with zero filler. Every clause 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?
An output schema exists and covers return values, so the description need not explain them; for a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the sibling-routing guidance missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-heavy baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly adds no parameter noise.
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 ("列出") and resource ("工作流模板"), scoped to the workflow-templates repository. It clearly differs from get_template_info (single template detail) by being a repository-wide enumeration, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 is only implied: the enumeration framing suggests calling this before drilling into a specific template, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to get_template_info as the follow-up. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.