workflowy_get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - it doesn't explain what the tool actually does, what permissions are needed, what data is returned, or any side effects. The deprecation warning is useful but doesn't describe the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence that delivers the essential information (deprecation and alternative). Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's perfectly front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

While there's an output schema, the description is incomplete for understanding the tool. It doesn't explain what the tool does, what the parameter means, or what behavior to expect. For a deprecated tool, this might be intentional, but from an agent's perspective, it lacks the context needed to understand the tool's function.

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 description provides no information about the 'node_id' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description, there's complete lack of parameter semantics. The description doesn't explain what node_id represents or how to obtain it.

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 provides no information about what the tool does. It only states that it's deprecated and to use another tool instead. There's no verb, resource, or functional explanation, making it tautological with the name and title.

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 states when NOT to use this tool ('DEPRECATED') and provides a clear alternative ('Use workflowy_glimpse (GLIMPSE) instead'). This is a perfect example of explicit usage guidance with alternatives.

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