workflowy_scry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bypass WebSocket' and loading 'complete tree regardless of expansion state,' which adds useful context about the tool's approach and scope. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'load' entails (e.g., data format, performance implications). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (loading entire trees with 4 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which mitigates the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks parameter explanations and detailed behavioral context, especially critical since no annotations are provided. This results in a moderate level of completeness for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (node_id, depth, size_limit, output_file) are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, failing to compensate for the schema gap. This leaves the agent with no guidance on what inputs are needed or how they affect the tool's behavior, beyond the required 'node_id' inferred from the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Load entire node tree via API (bypass WebSocket).' It specifies the verb ('load'), resource ('entire node tree'), and mechanism ('via API, bypass WebSocket'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflowy_glimpse' or 'workflowy_get_node' beyond mentioning 'ETCH' and 'complete tree regardless of expansion state,' which are somewhat indirect comparisons.

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 explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when Key Files doesn't have parent UUID for ETCH, or when Dan wants complete tree regardless of expansion state.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool, including specific conditions and user preferences. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond implied references to 'ETCH' and other tools, missing full sibling differentiation.

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