list_all_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses current-user scoping, default workflow_id behavior, all_types override behavior, date-range options, and that the return value is a JSON string. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but the read-only fetch nature is clear from the verb '获取'.

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 Args-style structure is clean and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is minor redundancy between the first two sentences, both stating the 'all workflows list' idea, but the content is otherwise efficient and well-organized.

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 description is largely complete for invoking the tool: it covers all parameters, provides known IDs, explains filtering behavior, and notes the return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return-field documentation is not required. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to the sibling workflow-list tools.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: page_no, page_size, date_range with enumerated allowed values, workflow_id with known process type IDs, and all_types semantics. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema names and defaults.

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 states the operation: '获取当前用户可见的所有流程列表' (get all workflows visible to the current user), supported by type/date filtering. The 'all' scope distinguishes it from sibling list tools focused on my/todo/processed/program-modification workflows. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 conveys the tool's context—listing all workflows visible to the current user—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_my_workflows, list_todo_workflows, list_processed_workflows, or get_workflow_detail. Usage must be inferred from the name and scope rather than stated directly.

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