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

The description reveals useful behavior beyond the sparse annotations: Oi automatically selects the best installed workflow, reserved selector words are stripped, and the result is an execution-ready prompt with the user request under '## User Request'. It does not detail side effects or authorization requirements, which would have made it fully transparent, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Four focused sentences, each earning its place: primary use case, examples, workflowId guidance, selector warning, and return format. The most important operational detail is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 complexity (six parameters, nested objects) the description plus 100% schema coverage and an output schema together provide enough to invoke it correctly. It explains the critical workflowId ambiguity and the output format, though it could have noted the relationship to workflow start-session/context execution siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra semantics by explaining when to provide workflowId ('only for a specific workflow') and warning that wf/workflow/workflows are reserved selectors, not IDs. This clarifies the most error-prone parameter beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool as the primary path for concrete workflow tasks ('Use Oi Workflows for a concrete task') with concrete request examples. It is specific about verb and resource, but it does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as oi.workflows.start-session or oi.skills.use, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for 'oi use ...' requests and either pass workflowId for a specific workflow or omit it for automatic selection. It also explains how to handle reserved selectors. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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