get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that returned items are those that could not be processed automatically, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention any permissions needed, or describe the response structure beyond 'workflow items.' While 'Retrieve' implies non-mutating behavior, the description lacks deeper transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Retrieve...') and then provides a concise explanation of what the workflow items are, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and the nature of the returned items. It could be marginally improved by noting the response format or typical fields, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use 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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter administrationId, including its type and default behavior (YUKI_DOMAIN_ID env var). The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so it does not go beyond the 100% schema coverage already present.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the Yuki backoffice workflow items.' It clearly defines what these items are (unprocessed purchase and sales invoices awaiting accountant review), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_sales_invoices or get_purchase_invoices that would return all invoices, not just pending workflow items.

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 implies usage: use this tool to retrieve items that need manual review and booking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_missing_invoices or process_sales_invoice, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the optional administrationId parameter.

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