Get Workflows

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read-only nature, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: tool availability reflects the server's launch-time packs alarm, and flags must be discovered here before restart. It does not describe the response format or invalid-topic behavior, but the annotation burden is lower here.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the topic list is compact. The final two sentences about launch-time pack selection are useful but slightly redundant with each other, which costs a point.

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 read-only documentation tool, the description explains what it returns, why it matters, and when to call it. It lacks explicit return-format details and precise parameter behavior, but the optional-topic schema and readOnlyHint annotation make those gaps non-critical.

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, topic, has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. The enumeration of concrete workflow topics gives the agent plausible values, but the description never explicitly maps these to the topic parameter or explains what happens when it is omitted or null. It partially compensates without fully documenting the parameter.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Get recipes for this server') and enumerates the specific workflow topics returned, so an agent can tell this is a documentation/how-to tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_server_info, but the listed content is specific enough to prevent serious confusion.

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 when-to-use context: packs are chosen at launch, so this tool is where an agent learns which launch flag is needed before restarting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.