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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral content beyond them: results include changes affecting nested workflows and changes anchored to the workflow with no effects yet, and each entry carries its per-step effect. That materially shapes what the agent expects back.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the actionable next step. The em-dash clause about nested workflows is slightly tangled but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so reasonably (changes with per-step effects, including nested and anchored ones). It omits ordering/pagination expectations and any workspace-param caveat, but for a two-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 pageId and workspace are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter (no format hints for the workflow page id, no workspace behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource (list changes reaching a workflow's steps) and adds scope detail about nested workflows and anchored-but-inert changes, so the agent knows this is a change-discovery query rather than a mutation. It differentiates from siblings partly through the rollup cross-reference, but does not contrast itself with nearby tools like compass_changes_upsert or compass_workflow_steps.

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?

It gives a genuine downstream instruction (pass returned ids to compass_workflow_rollup's changeIds to project the workflow), which names a sibling and a concrete next action. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites for the workflow state, so usage is only implied.

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