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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool returns a live catalog with specific fields and filtering capabilities. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a read-only lookup tool this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences convey the purpose, usage, and parameter details with no redundancy. The most critical information (what it returns and when to call) is 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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers return content, filtering, and usage context. It sufficiently prepares the agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining the chain parameter's effect in detail (which blocks are included per chain) and noting the default. For category, it adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Overall, it provides useful additional context.

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 tool returns a live catalog of CTRL workflow blocks with specific fields (id, label, description, config-field schemas). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ctrl_create_workflow by specifying it should be called when unsure of a block's config shape.

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 calling this tool before ctrl_create_workflow when the config shape is unknown, providing clear usage context. It also explains how to filter by chain and the default value, but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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