workflowy_glimpse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions loading into context 'no file intermediary' and optional file export with 'TERRAIN export (WebSocket+API merge with full NEXUS semantics)', which adds some behavioral context like direct access and export capabilities. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential (implied by 'export').

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 brief (three sentences) but front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes jargon like 'GLIMPSE command', 'TERRAIN export', and 'NEXUS semantics' without explanation, reducing clarity. The structure is somewhat efficient but could be more straightforward, with sentences that don't fully earn their place due to unclear terminology.

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?

Given complexity (tool with potential read/write operations, 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. It hints at behavior but lacks details on inputs, outputs (though output schema exists, the description doesn't bridge to it), error handling, or sibling differentiation. For a tool in a rich sibling set with cryptic terms, more context is needed to be adequately helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'node_id' implicitly via 'node tree' and describes 'output_file' as writing 'TERRAIN export', adding some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., export format and semantics). However, it doesn't explain what 'node_id' is, its format, or constraints, and the export details are cryptic ('WebSocket+API merge with full NEXUS semantics'), failing to fully clarify the two parameters.

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 the tool loads a node tree into context, which is a specific verb+resource ('Load entire node tree into context'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'workflowy_get_node' or 'workflowy_export_node' beyond mentioning 'GLIMPSE command for direct context loading' and a sibling warning hinting at preference. The purpose is somewhat vague regarding what 'context' means and how this differs from other retrieval tools.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'GLIMPSE command for direct context loading' and implies an alternative use with 'output_file' for export, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'workflowy_get_node' (which has a warning to prefer glimpse) or 'workflowy_export_node'. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons is given, leaving usage unclear.

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