whodb_platform_workflow_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them, disclosing that it 'never executes writes' and that the workspace argument targets 'per-call ... without changing defaults', which clarifies statefulness/side-effects that the annotations alone don't.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, that it is read-only, how workspace targeting works), though the workspace sentence is dense and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a 'recipe' contains and how its steps relate to workflow_apply/confirm, but it does not. For a read-only guidance tool with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations the essentials are present, but the relationship to the confirm/apply workflow is under-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents goal, fields, and the nested workspace object. The description only restates the workspace {host, org, project} shape, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return a goal-oriented, read-first recipe for using the hosted WhoDB platform.' That clearly distinguishes it as a planning/guidance read from mutating siblings. However, it does not name or contrast sibling tools like whodb_platform_workflow_plan or whodb_platform_write_plan, whose purposes overlap and could confuse selection.

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?

'use its steps to build and apply a confirmed workflow' implies usage context but never states explicitly when to choose this over workflow_plan, workflow_list, workflow_apply, or build_plan. The condition for selecting it is left to inference.

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