get_workflows

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Pure guidance: reads nothing, changes nothing.' It also reveals how the tool behaves for each invocation style and that each step includes a one-line rationale.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses each sentence for a distinct role: what it provides, how to invoke it, and its safety profile. The list of task names is long but earns its place by compensating for the missing schema enum.

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 guidance tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it covers invocation variants, valid tasks, behavior, and side-effect safety. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be described.

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 no description for the task parameter, but the description fully compensates by documenting both valid values and the behavior when omitted. It effectively provides an enum-like list of valid task names in prose.

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 identifies this as a guidance tool that returns recommended tool sequences, not a document operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_text or apply_edits by explicitly saying it is 'Pure guidance: reads nothing, changes nothing.'

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 call patterns: call with no task to list available tasks, or call with task='<name>' for details. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling tool overlaps with this guidance function, so the usage context is clear.

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