Ghl List Workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds no behavioral detail beyond 'List'—it does not state that the operation is read-only, how pagination works, whether folder traversal is recursive, or what the response contains. The description largely restates the tool name.

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 no filler. It front-loads the verb and object immediately and includes useful scoping information ('of a sub-account'). Every word 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?

The tool is simple and has a complete input schema plus an output schema, so the basics are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the description alone does not fully inform an agent about read-only safety, folder semantics, or when to choose this tool over ghl_get_workflow.

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 the input schema already documents limit, parent_id, and location_id clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when the schema covers all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('automation workflows and folders') plus scope ('of a sub-account'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like ghl_get_workflow, ghl_create_workflow, and ghl_list_forms.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ghl_get_workflow should be used for a single workflow, or that create/delete tools are for modification. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'List'.

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