workflowy_list_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool is deprecated, offering no behavioral details like what the tool originally did, its read/write nature, permissions needed, or output format. For a tool with 1 parameter and output schema, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words—a single sentence front-loading the critical deprecation information. Every word earns its place by clearly communicating the tool's status and alternative.

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 deprecated tool, the description adequately communicates its status and alternative, which is the primary need. However, given it has 1 parameter and an output schema, more context about its original function would help agents understand legacy usage or migration needs, though not strictly required for deprecation.

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 provides no information about the 'parent_id' parameter—not its purpose, format, or effect. The deprecation notice doesn't add any parameter semantics, leaving the parameter completely undocumented.

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 is a tautology that restates the tool name ('workflowy_list_nodes') without explaining what it does. It provides no specific verb or resource details, only indicating it's deprecated. This fails to clarify the tool's actual function beyond its name.

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 'DEPRECATED: Use workflowy_glimpse (GLIMPSE) instead', providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming the specific alternative. This is ideal for deprecated tools, leaving no ambiguity about usage.

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