get_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds useful context about the two call modes (index vs full steps) and the content of the recipes. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists workflow names, which is necessary information. The list is long but each item is useful for selecting a task. Slightly verbose, but every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint=true, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: purpose, parameter semantics, and when to use it. There are no missing prerequisites or ambiguous behaviors that would prevent correct use.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter explanation. It does: no task returns the index, a task name returns full steps. It also enumerates many valid task names, effectively compensating for the lack of enums in the 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 clearly states the tool provides step-by-step recipes for common jobs, each naming required packs and tool order. It lists many workflow names, giving a concrete sense of the resource covered. It is distinct from the sibling operation tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 explicit invocation guidance: call with no task for the index, with a task name for full steps. It also advises reading the matching recipe before the first deck edit to prevent wrong-tool detours. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for using them, only implies them.

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