Get Workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by explaining the parameter behavior: 'Call with no task for the index, with a task name for full steps.' This discloses how the tool behaves differently based on input, which is beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 somewhat long due to the recipe list, but every item serves a purpose – they are the valid values for the task parameter. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage instructions are clear. It's efficient given the information density, though it could be trimmed by moving the recipe list to a separate reference.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential call patterns and usage context. It explains when to read recipes and lists all known task names. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output format is presumably covered by the output schema.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must fully explain the 'task' parameter. It does so clearly: 'Call with no task for the index, with a task name for full steps.' It also provides a list of valid task names (recipes), which compensates for the lack of enums in the schema. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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's purpose: it provides step-by-step recipes for common jobs, naming the packs and tool order. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-guide rather than a specific operation. The list of recipe names adds concreteness, and the instruction to call with no task for index or with a task name for full steps clarifies the resource being accessed.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Read the matching recipe before your first deck edit of a session; it prevents most wrong-tool detours.' This gives a clear context of use and implies it's a precursor to other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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