Get Workflows

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds 'Pure guidance: reads nothing, changes nothing', making the safety profile explicit. It also discloses that calling without arguments lists tasks versus returning sequences, which is genuinely useful 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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, usage modes, task list, and safety note. The task-name list is long but necessary since no enum is provided in the schema. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose.

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 description is complete for a simple guidance tool: it explains what it returns in both invocation modes, lists all available tasks, and clarifies the read-only nature. With an output schema present, no further return-format details are needed.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the optional 'task' parameter: its default behavior, how to pass a task name, and the complete list of accepted values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('workflows' / recommended tool sequences) and explains exactly what the tool provides: step-by-step guidance with one-line reasons. It clearly distinguishes itself from the document-manipulation siblings by positioning itself as pure meta-guidance.

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 explains the two invocation modes: call with no task to list available tasks, or call with task='<name>' for a specific sequence. It also names all valid task values, leaving no ambiguity about how to use the tool.

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