neuron_list_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the word 'List', but it does not disclose output format, ordering, filtering behavior, or whether any side effects occur.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the core action and target resource are front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what will be listed, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the operation, though no return-format details are given.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 resource ('all saved workflow recordings'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from related recording and replay tools by focusing on listing saved recordings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as neuron_workflow_status, neuron_start_recording, or neuron_recipe_list. The description states what the tool does but gives no context for choosing it over alternatives.

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