yaaif_ambient_workflow_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but 'List' only restates the verb already present in the tool name. It does not disclose whether q and ambient_agent_id filter results, whether pagination or limits apply, or whether any auth/session requirement exists.

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 short and front-loaded with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than economically complete. One sentence is not enough when the schema gives no parameter documentation and the sibling list creates ambiguity.

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 tool, a minimal description could be acceptable if the schema documented q and ambient_agent_id, but it does not. With no annotations, no output schema, and a duplicate-sounding sibling, the agent lacks enough context to call or interpret the tool reliably.

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%; neither q nor ambient_agent_id has a schema description. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter, leaving their semantics entirely unspecified.

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 names the action (list) and resource (ambient workflows), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling yaaif_list_ambient_workflows, or clarify whether it returns workflow definitions rather than runs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this over yaaif_ambient_workflow_get, yaaif_ambient_runs_list, or yaaif_list_ambient_workflows. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or notes on optional filtering. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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