ateam_get_workflows

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('phases, what to ask, what to build, exit criteria, and tips') but does not explicitly state the read-only nature or any prerequisites. The verb 'Get' implies non-mutation, but a direct statement about side effects is missing, so transparency is moderate.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then add a usage cue, and finish with return content. No filler words; every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple with no parameters or output schema. The description covers the essential return information ('phases, what to ask, what to build, exit criteria, and tips for each stage'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will get. It could specify the exact format, but for a conversational guide this is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter information.

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 names the resource ('builder workflows') and the action ('Get'), and explains what they are ('step-by-step state machines for building skills and solutions'), distinguishing this tool from sibling get tools like get_spec or get_examples by focusing on the build workflow guide.

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 states 'Use this to guide users through the entire build process conversationally,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction is sufficient for selection.

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