list_workflows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces and expands: 'Read-only: it only reads YAML files and never executes anything.' It also details the return structure (object with count and workflows) and clarifies that it takes no arguments. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action and return structure, the second provides usage guidance, the third confirms read-only and no arguments. No fluff, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, return format, usage context, behavioral traits, and references siblings. There is no missing information for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the instructions. The description states 'Takes no arguments,' which adds no new information beyond the empty schema, but that is acceptable for a no-parameter tool. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, but the explicit mention of no arguments is clear.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'List the workflows available in this server's workflow directory.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this first to discover which workflows exist and what inputs each accepts before calling dry_run_workflow or run_workflow.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Call this first to discover which workflows exist... before calling dry_run_workflow or run_workflow.' It also notes it is read-only and takes no arguments. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like validate_workflow, the context with sibling tools and the sequencing advice is strong.

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