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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a key safety trait, but it omits details about failure behavior, response format, or any side effects beyond the read-only claim. The description is not contradictory to annotations, but it is thin on 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only qualifier is placed immediately after the action. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, error details). Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, an agent cannot know what to expect from a call. The description covers the action but leaves the outcome ambiguous.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Baseline of 4 applies per the rubric for tools with no parameters.

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 action ('Verify') and a specific resource ('the configured account can log in to AppFlowy and reach it'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search pages. It also explicitly marks it as read-only, reinforcing its distinct role as an authentication check.

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 a use case—checking auth before other operations—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would infer it is a prerequisite check, but the guidance is not spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and specifies the output format (Markdown), which is meaningful context. It does not cover error behavior, but for a simple read-only retrieval the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and return format are front-loaded, and the input modes and read-only nature are stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it returns, what inputs it accepts, and its safety profile. No output schema exists, so the explicit 'Markdown' return format is especially valuable and 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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's statement that it accepts a page title or view id largely restates the page parameter description, adding minimal semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns a document page's body rendered as Markdown. This clearly differentiates get_page from the sibling tools list_pages, search_pages, and list_workspaces, and the mention of view ids from list_pages reinforces the intended scope.

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 it when you need a page's body as Markdown, especially after obtaining a view id from list_pages. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternative tools for other retrieval needs, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: 'Read-only.' It also states the payload outlook (titles, ids, and page types), which is not available elsewhere since there is no output schema. It stops short of covering failure modes or pagination on larger workspaces, but for a simple read operation this is solid 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words: the primary action and scope are front-loaded, the output contents follow in a parenthetical, and the read-only note is a compact trailing clause. Each element earns its place and none duplicates schema content.

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 minimal signature (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the input from the schema, states the output composition, and flags side-effect safety. The only missing bits are lower-priority context, such as sort order/tree-depth presentation or behavior on invalid workspace names, which are minor for such a simple read-only 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 only parameter, 'workspace', is 100% described in the input schema ('Workspace name or id (from list_workspaces)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond stating the tool's scope ('of a workspace'), so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource ('page/view tree of a workspace'), enumerates the returned data (titles, ids, type: document/grid/board/…), and adds a 'Read-only' safety marker. The tree-listing phrasing implicitly differentiates this tool from siblings like search_pages and get_page, but it never explicitly names the alternative, which keeps this from the top score.

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 intended use case—retrieve the whole page tree of a workspace for an overview—is implied by the wording. However, there's no explicit routing guidance, such as when to prefer search_pages (e.g., finding a page by content) or get_page (e.g., retrieving a single page's detail). An agent comparing this to search_pages gets only an implicit signal of how they differ.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which signals no side effects, and 'List all' indicates the absence of filtering. This is meaningful beyond the name and title, though it does not mention authentication requirements or response formatting.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the read-only caveat immediately following. Every part earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the operation, the resource scope, the fields returned, and the side-effect-free nature. No additional details are required for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the output fields, which is the only semantic context an agent needs here.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'AppFlowy workspaces' and explicitly names the returned fields: name, id, role, member count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages and search_pages.

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 makes clear that this tool returns all workspaces, which is the correct context for calling it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific wording is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, explains that body=true is slower and decodes documents, and reports that matches are returned with ids. It omits details like result limits or pagination, but covers the key operational profile for a simple search tool.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the body-mode caveat is included, and the read-only claim is expressed in a single word.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return information ('Returns matches with ids') and the main performance tradeoff. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not specify match limits, ordering, or exact matching behavior.

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 schema already documents workspace, query, and body. The description adds the performance implication of body=true and implies that title-only search is the default, but this is complementary rather than substantial new semantic information.

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 opens with 'Find pages by title, or by body text when body=true' – a precise verb, resource, and search mode. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pages or get_page by emphasizing search over listing or fetching, and the read-only note clarifies its non-mutating nature.

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 clear context for when the optional body search is appropriate, including the warning that it 'decodes each document' and is slower. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer list_pages/get_page, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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