listWorkflowFieldOptions

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

Annotations declare read-only and closed-world. Description adds the `400 no_options` error case and instructs to ask the user, which is useful error-handling behavior not in annotations. However, it doesn't describe return format beyond 'choices'. With annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.

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?

Two sentences plus a tag. Front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with usage and error guidance. No filler.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and error handling. It does not describe output format, but with no output schema and a straightforward list return, this is minor.

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 descriptions are 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. Description hints that the field is a '`ref` field' and that `depends` relates to a dependency, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema's own 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?

States it returns 'choices for one `ref` field of a node type' and gives examples (phone numbers, agents, integrations). This distinguishes it from `listWorkflowNodeTypes` and `getWorkflowNodeType`, which deal with node types rather than field options. Clear and specific.

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?

Tells when to use ('for every `ref` field', 'never guess an id') and when not to ('400 no_options' means ask the user). Provides explicit error-handling guidance and a fallback behavior. No other tool alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough.

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