regulated-reporting-mcp

by dbett4

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most core tools have distinct, clearly separated purposes, but the 17+ deprecated shim tools (e.g., workiva_wdata_files, workiva_chain_run, workiva_document_sections) directly overlap with their recommended replacements, forcing agents to read descriptions carefully and still risking selection of the wrong variant. The deprecated tools are clearly labeled, but their presence still creates ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
The primary tools consistently follow a workiva_<domain>_<verb>_<noun> pattern (e.g., workiva_list_organizations, workiva_wdata_create_table). However, the deprecated shims break this pattern by using bare resource names (e.g., workiva_organization, workiva_workspace, workiva_tasks), mixing styles within the same set.
Tool Count1/5
With 117 tools, this is an extreme count even for a comprehensive Workiva API wrapper. The set includes ~100 unique operations plus numerous deprecated shims, far exceeding the typical well-scoped server. It would be nearly impossible for an agent to efficiently select among so many options without significant prompt overhead.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of Workiva domains—organizations, workspaces, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, Wdata tables/queries/connections, tasks, files, style guides, and linking—with CRUD and lifecycle operations for most. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for Wdata queries, no explicit formatting tool), but overall the surface is quite complete for the apparent regulated-reporting scope.
Average 3.4/5 across 100 of 117 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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 disclosure, but it says nothing about state changes, side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The single phrase 'Submit a task' gives no insight into what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and uses a clear 'Args' structure, wasting no words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, which prevents a higher score despite its efficient formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description omits when to use the tool, what state change occurs, and how to obtain the task_id. The ambiguity of 'submit' makes the description insufficient for a correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The task UUID' for task_id, which goes beyond the schema's bare title 'Task Id' by specifying the expected format. While minimal, this is useful and compensates somewhat for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Submit a task.' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'workiva_submit_task' with spaces, providing no additional meaning. It doesn't clarify what 'submit' indicates (e.g., submitting for approval, marking complete) or distinguish it from sibling tools like approve_task or create_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention related task tools, prerequisites, or workflow context, leaving the agent without any selection criteria among the many task-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a task' without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, any permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant transparency gap for a deletion operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is not conciseness but rather under-specification. It consists of one sentence and an args list, providing no meaningful structure beyond what the schema already offers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has a simple single-parameter signature and an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the deletion's impact, reversibility, or any special cases. The minimal text leaves the agent without enough information to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description attempts to compensate by noting that task_id is 'The task UUID.' This adds a minimal detail about the expected format, but it mostly restates the parameter name and schema type (string). It does not explain how to obtain the task_id or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a task' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like create_task or update_task, though it does not elaborate on any task-specific scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as Workiva_update_task or Workiva_submit_task. The description simply states the action with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get chain details' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes 'details', any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short and technically concise, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about usage, behavior, and return context. The 'Args' block only restates the schema, contributing little beyond what the schema already exposes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, which covers return values, the description lacks context about when to use the tool, how it relates to other chain tools, and what 'details' includes. For a simple one-parameter tool this is still insufficient, as an agent would need to guess the tool's purpose and semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'chain_id: The chain UUID' which merely restates the parameter type as string/UUID. It provides no additional semantic value such as format constraints, related objects, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to meaningfully enrich the parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get chain details' with a clear verb+resource, which conveys the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like workiva_list_chains or workiva_chain_run, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use when you have a chain_id'. The description simply repeats the function name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as read-only safety, error handling, or authentication requirements. It only states the basic action, so the agent receives no transparency beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and to the point, consisting of a single sentence and an argument list. No unnecessary words, but the brevity may border on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it, what behavioral expectations to have, or how it differs from related tools. For such a simple tool, the description is minimally viable but not helpful enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists org_id as 'Organization ID', which merely restates the schema title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide additional context (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or relationship to other objects), but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (organization details). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like workiva_organization or workiva_list_organizations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_list_organizations or workiva_organization. There are no usage conditions or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names parameters and their roles, but does not explain side effects, mutation risks, revision handling, or consequences on existing content. There is no mention of what makes a batch edit successful or whether it's reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact with a simple parameter list, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. Every line is terse, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, especially regarding the 'data' parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool involves batch editing with a revision parameter and a complex data structure, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how to construct 'edit operations', why revision is required, or what happens on mismatch. The output schema exists, but the input contract is incomplete for a reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief meanings for each parameter ('richText UUID', 'Current revision', 'Edit operations'), but the explanation for 'data' is tautological ('Edit operations') and does not describe the structure or allowed operations. Revision semantics are also vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Batch edit') and a specific resource ('rich text paragraphs'), which distinguishes it from read, duplicate, and other rich-text tools. However, it lacks detail on the exact scope of 'edit' operations, so it doesn't fully differentiate from potential siblings like 'workiva_edit_table_structure' or similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The context of batch editing implies multiple operations but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List groups' with no mention of pagination, permissions, ordering, or response structure. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral details like rate limits or data completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the parameter list. It is not bloated and is easy to parse. However, the structure is minimal and could be improved with a more detailed explanation, but for the simplicity of the tool, it is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context. It does not clarify what 'groups' refers to, whether results are paginated, or how the response is structured. With many sibling tools, this absence of context could confuse an agent selecting the correct tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description's 'Args' section merely repeats the parameter name and title ('workspace_id: Workspace ID') without adding additional meaning, examples, or constraints. This provides zero added value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List groups') and the resource scope ('in a workspace'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from general list tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_workspaces or list_workspace_memberships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely a statement of functionality with no contextual hints, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling list tools, more usage guidance would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete' with no information about permanence, side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. This is a significant omission for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then lists the argument. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a delete operation, key contextual information (e.g., irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects) is missing. This is a minimal viable description but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it merely repeats the parameter name and adds no meaningful semantics beyond 'query_id: The query ID.' The schema already provides the type and name, so the description adds marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a Wdata query.' This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (e.g., workiva_wdata_delete_table, workiva_delete_file) by naming the specific resource type. However, it doesn't provide any additional context about scope or unambiguity beyond the operation itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, related operations (e.g., get_query, validate_query), or any exclusions. Given the presence of many Wdata query tools in the sibling list, this is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'via PATCH' and lists parameters. It does not disclose what editable fields exist, side effects on destination links, permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the action. The arg list is clean, though it partially repeats the schema. It is not excessively wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient. It lacks explanation of range link concepts, the effect of the edit, expected response, and any constraints. The existence of an output schema may cover return values, but the operational context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 assigns basic types (UUID, ID) but the crucial 'data' parameter is explained only as 'Edit data', adding no meaningful semantics. The schema shows it as an array of objects, but the description does not specify what fields those objects can contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Edit a range link via PATCH', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_range_links or get_range_link, though it does not explicitly compare to related link operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from create_destination_link or publish_links.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates the operation name and parameter, without disclosing behavioral details like read-only nature, error handling, or what 'table properties' entails. With no annotations, the agent is left uninformed about side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but the 'Args' section redundantly repeats schema information without adding value. It is under-specified rather than concise, omitting essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the many sibling tools and an output schema, this sparse description fails to fully contextualize the operation. It doesn't specify the table domain or when to prefer this tool, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that table_id is a UUID, adding a small semantic improvement over the schema's 'Table Id'. However, it does not explain the table context (e.g., spreadsheet vs Wdata) or what properties are returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get table properties' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameter is documented. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'workiva_table_properties' or clarify which table domain it applies to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'workiva_wdata_get_table' or 'workiva_table_properties'. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Import a style guide' does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing data, which is a significant gap for a potentially mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the operation statement, followed by a minimal Args block. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than polished conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the operational effect of importing, any prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling style-guide tools, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that style_guide_id is a UUID, which adds type clarity beyond the schema's 'Style Guide Id' label. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID or provide additional format guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Import a style guide' with a specific verb and resource, which clearly identifies what the tool does. It is somewhat distinguished from siblings like workiva_get_style_guide and workiva_export_style_guide by the import/export direction, but it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_style_guide or export_style_guide. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get a Wdata file' without mentioning read-only nature, response format, error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects. The absence of these details means the agent cannot anticipate consequences beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, with the purpose in one sentence and the parameter in a simple Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the Args block is redundant with the schema. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but this conciseness comes at the expense of useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to be complete. It lacks context about when to use this operation in the Wdata workflow, what distinguishes it from other Wdata file tools, and any behavioral caveats. The agent would likely need external knowledge to use it correctly beyond the basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (file_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'The Wdata file ID', which is nearly identical to the schema title 'File Id' and provides no extra meaning about format, type, or how to obtain the ID. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a Wdata file' which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (Wdata file), differentiating it from sibling tools like list, upload, delete, or query operations. It is concise and directly names the object of the operation, though it does not elaborate on what 'get' entails (metadata vs. content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_wdata_list_files or workiva_get_file. The description only states the basic function and parameter, leaving the agent without contextual cues about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond the basic action. It lacks information about pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or what exactly constitutes a 'query' in this context, so the agent has no additional safety or behavior context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is compact. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity leaves out important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description lacks essential context about the Wdata domain, such as whether queries are workspace-specific, organization-wide, or what 'query' refers to. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing domain context, making it under-specified for an agent unfamiliar with the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'max_results' with 'Max results to return', which is redundant with the parameter title in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value and fails to clarify semantics like default behavior, limits, or how results are ordered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Wdata queries' uses a clear verb with a resource, which is straightforward. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_query (which retrieves a single query) by the verb 'list'. However, it doesn't add any scope or domain context that would differentiate it further from other list operations in the sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_query, create_query, or other list tools. It doesn't mention typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create' and lists parameters; it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or how revision prevents conflicts. The mention of 'Current table revision string' implies concurrency control but does not clarify consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a concise purpose sentence, but the trailing argument list largely duplicates the schema with minimal added value and contains a typo. It is not bloated, but the redundant parameter list and error prevent a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described. The description gives no context about what a source anchor is, when to use it, or what the return value contains. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 explanations for all six parameters, including 0-based indexing and that table_id comes from workiva_spreadsheet_sheets. However, there is a typo where start_column is described as 'Stop column', which reduces reliability and could mislead an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a source anchor on spreadsheet cells,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like workiva_create_destination_link, but the action is clearly scoped to creating a source anchor, which is a distinct concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a spreadsheet or how anchors relate to links, nor does it point to sibling tools for other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get workspace details' without disclosing permissions, error handling, or the nature of the returned data. Behavioral traits are largely implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in one sentence. The 'Args' line is redundant with the schema but adds negligible bulk. No wasted words, though it could be more substantive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent needing to decide when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats the parameter name ('workspace_id: Workspace ID') with no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's format, constraints, or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get workspace details' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a single workspace's information by ID. It distinguishes itself from list_workspaces by targeting a specific workspace, though it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workiva_list_workspaces or workiva_get_organization. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the verb 'Create'. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, validation behavior, or error outcomes. With no annotations provided, this leaves the agent with no safety or side-effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose and an Args list. It is clean and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified, but that does not detract from its concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a create operation with 3 parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It does not provide context about what constitutes a valid table, what table types are supported, or how to structure the schema object. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing input semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 'name: Table name', 'table_type: Table type', and 'schema: Table schema definition', which barely adds meaning over the schema titles. It does not explain valid table_type values, schema format (e.g., JSON schema vs column list), or whether these are optional. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a Wdata table' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_update_table, workiva_wdata_delete_table, and workiva_wdata_list_tables by indicating a create operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a connection or workspace, nor does it explain when one would choose create_table over create_query or upload_file. No 'use when' or 'instead of' context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get a Wdata connection', which adds no information beyond the tool name. There is no mention of error handling, read-only guarantees, authentication needs, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence. It is well-structured with an Args section, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. Nevertheless, for a single-parameter getter, the length is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description lacks any context about Wdata connections, when to use this tool, or how it relates to other connection-related tools. With no annotations and minimal description, the tool is not fully contextualized for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description only says 'connection_id: The connection ID', which merely restates the parameter name and type. It does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints, adding zero value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Wdata connection'), clearly indicating a read operation for a single connection. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'workiva_wdata_list_connections' by implying retrieval of a specific connection by ID, which is further clarified by the parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workiva_wdata_list_connections' or 'workiva_wdata_refresh_connection'. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only says 'Get' without describing side effects, return format, authentication needs, or error behaviors. No additional context is offered beyond the immediate action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with the main statement front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter get operation, though its brevity borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It lacks differentiation from related table-focused tools and fails to mention when to use this over get_table_properties, but it does cover the essential 'fetch by ID' semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage and the description provides a minimal arg line 'table_id: The Wdata table ID', which essentially restates the schema title 'Table Id'. It does not explain the ID's format, origin, or how to locate it, failing to substantially compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'a single Wdata table', which identifies the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like workiva_get_table_properties or workiva_get_table_columns, which could lead to confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tables or get_table_properties. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether any side effects occur, what the response structure is (though an output schema exists), or any authentication or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and to the point, with no extraneous words. The Args block is a clear, structured list. However, it is under-specified in terms of behavioral context, but that is captured in other dimensions; for conciseness, it earns a high score for zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks any contextual completeness: no mention of use cases, relationship to presentations (e.g., that slide_id belongs to the specified presentation), or guidance on navigating from a list of slides. The output schema exists, so return details are covered, but the surrounding context of when and how to use this tool is absent. For a simple get-by-ID operation, this is borderline, but the lack of any contextual hints makes it insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds a small amount of meaning by labeling presentation_id as 'The presentation UUID' and slide_id as 'The slide ID,' which goes slightly beyond the bare schema titles ('Presentation Id', 'Slide Id'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate—it does not clarify how to find these IDs or what format the slide_id takes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a single presentation slide' — a clear verb and resource, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from listing all slides. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_get_presentation (which retrieves a presentation, not a slide) or workiva_update_presentation_slide, though these differences are inferable from the resource names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a slide_id), no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools like workiva_list_presentation_slides or workiva_get_document_section. The description simply states the action without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the action 'List runs', without disclosing any details such as whether pagination is supported, what fields are returned, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Args' section is compact and easy to parse. It earns high marks for brevity, though the structure could be more natural for a description field.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what a 'run' is and any details about the listing behavior (e.g., ordering, limits), leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes 'chain_id: The chain UUID', which adds a small clarification over the schema's 'Chain Id' by specifying the format. However, it does not provide further details on how the UUID should be formatted or where to find it, so it is minimally adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List runs of a chain' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies the action and the target, distinguishing it from other list tools by the 'chain runs' resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions other tools nor gives context about prerequisites or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and provides no information about pagination, ordering, filters, or any side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args:' block is clear and avoids excess, though it under-specifies rather than being elegantly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks any context about what a Wdata chain is, whether limits apply, or how it relates to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, max_results, is described as 'Max results to return,' which simply restates the schema title. It adds no additional meaning about behavior, validation, or defaults, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List Wdata chains.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'workiva_list_chain_runs' or 'workiva_get_chain' by specifying Wdata chains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only uses the word 'List,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, output structure, error cases, or any other behavioral traits. The description is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise, using only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids verbosity. However, it is perhaps too sparse, but for a single-parameter list operation, the length is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema, so return values are not described in the text, which is fine. But the description lacks context about what layouts are, how the list is ordered, or any filtering capabilities. It also does not explain use cases or edge cases, leaving the agent without enough context for complex decisions. For a simple list tool this might be sufficient, but the description is so thin that completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with zero description coverage. The description compensates by stating 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID,' which clarifies the parameter's type and format. This is useful but minimal, adding only a single line of semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List layouts in a presentation.' The verb 'list' and resource 'layouts' are specific, and the resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_get_presentation or workiva_list_presentation_slides. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from those siblings or a definition of what a layout is, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description only says what it does, not when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. This gives the agent no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any details about pagination, sorting, permissions, or return format. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but lacks depth, meriting a mid-range score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is immediately front-loaded. There is no redundant or unclear content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not provide any context about what constitutes a workspace, whether it lists all workspaces or only accessible ones, or any other scope information. This is a clear gap, but for a simple list tool with no parameters and schema presence, the minimum bar is met.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and no additional information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List workspaces.' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'workiva_list_workspaces'. It adds no new information and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond what the name already does. This qualifies as a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For a tool with many sibling list tools, this lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read paragraphs', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or any limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with only two lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the parameter documentation is brief. No waste, though the Args section adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the basic function. However, it lacks context about how this tool relates to other rich text tools, what the output contains, or any edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter with 0% coverage from the description, so the description must compensate. The Args section notes 'rich_text_id: The richText UUID', which adds a slight clarification (UUID) beyond the schema's title but does not provide substantial additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read paragraphs') and the resource ('rich text resource'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_rich_text or workiva_batch_edit_rich_text, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects or operational details. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what happens to existing filters, or any output behavior. The phrase 'reapply filters' is vague about consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides no context about what reapplying filters does, which file types support this feature, or what the outcome/response looks like. While an output schema exists (per context signals), the description doesn't reference it or explain how this operation fits into a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the parameters and gives brief meanings: 'file_id: The file UUID' and 'file_type: spreadsheet, document, presentation, or table'. This adds a slight clarification (UUID) beyond the schema, but largely repeats the schema's enum and type info. With 0% schema description coverage, more semantic detail is expected, such as examples or usage constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Reapply filters') on a resource ('a file'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling operations like reading or writing cell data. However, it lacks detail on what 'reapply filters' entails, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other file-level actions like update_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and parameters, with no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Reassign a task' without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a minimal statement of action but lacks any contextual detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb phrase, followed by a single arg docstring. Every line earns its place with no fluff, though it may be under-specified for a non-obvious action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations and minimal description. It does not mention usage context, behavioral effects, or state requirements. While the single parameter is simple and an output schema exists, the lack of guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section explaining task_id as 'The task UUID'. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema's type, though it is redundant with the parameter name and does not describe format variations or required values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Reassign a task', which is a clear verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like submit_task or approve_task, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_task. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like workiva_update_task or workiva_submit_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, task state, or decision criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It simply states 'Reject a task' without disclosing what rejection entails, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an action that likely mutates task state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely compact: a single sentence stating the action plus an Args block for the parameter. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core intent. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks any surrounding context needed for a task action, such as the relationship to other task states (submitted, approved, reassigned), consequences of rejection, or typical usage scenarios. Even though an output schema exists, the description itself is too thin to enable confident tool selection in a complex workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the clarification 'The task UUID' to the task_id parameter, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Task Id' title. However, it does not provide further context such as how to obtain the UUID or any constraints, so the value added is minimal but present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Reject a task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_task, submit_task, and reassign_task. Despite its brevity, the purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve, submit, or reassign. There is no mention of workflow states, prerequisites, or conditions under which rejection is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'via JSON Patch' which hints at partial updates, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, what happens on invalid patches, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear 'Args' block that separates parameters. Every word contributes, but the brevity borders on under-specification, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with JSON Patch and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or relationship to sibling update tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe returns, but the description still leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 does add meaning by specifying that table_id is a 'table UUID' and that patches is a 'JSON Patch array', which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the structure of JSON Patch operations and the meaning of the nullable patches field, so the compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates table properties via JSON Patch, identifying both the action and the resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_edit_table_structure or workiva_wdata_update_table, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal use cases, or why one would choose JSON Patch over other update mechanisms, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Delete' without noting irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on dependent queries or tables, or any failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two sentences. The 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall there is no waste. It is front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description omits crucial context such as permanence, permission requirements, and consequences for dependent data. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not address operational safety, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It repeats 'file_id' as 'The Wdata file ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title and type. No details are given about how to obtain the ID, valid formats, or related constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a Wdata file' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying 'Wdata file', differentiating from file deletes in other contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the file must exist, nor does it exclude scenarios where other delete tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without mentioning irreversibility, side effects on dependent queries, permission requirements, or error behavior. The description lacks any qualitative detail beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the key action. However, the Args block redundantly restates the schema property, adding no value and wasting space. It earns a 4 for overall efficiency with minor redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description lacks important context such as whether deletion is permanent, how to obtain a table_id, or what happens if the table does not exist. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide operational completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's 'table_id: The Wdata table ID' adds little beyond the schema title 'Table Id' and the parameter name. It does not explain ID format, origin, or any constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a Wdata table' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_table, get_table, and update_table. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to other Wdata operations such as delete_file or delete_query. The agent is left without context for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Refresh' without explaining what refresh does (e.g., re-import data, update metadata), side effects, duration, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal but not verbose. It is appropriately sized for the content, though slightly under-specified, so a high score is warranted for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is incomplete for an agent: it lacks usage context, behavior details, and any prerequisite knowledge. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain when or why to invoke this tool, leaving a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats the parameter name with 'The connection ID', adding little beyond the schema. It confirms the parameter is an identifier but gives no format, constraints, or context about how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Refresh') and the resource ('a single Wdata connection'), with 'single' distinguishing it from the sibling batch refresh tool. This is a specific verb+resource combination that effectively conveys what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this refreshes one connection while workiva_wdata_batch_refresh_connections handles multiple, nor does it describe prerequisites or contexts for refreshing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'start a run'. It does not disclose whether the run is asynchronous, what side effects occur, error conditions, or how to obtain results. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a one-line summary and an Args section. It is efficient but could include more critical context without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for operational context. It does not mention that this initiates an async process, nor does it point to related tools for checking status or results. For a run operation, the absence of workflow context is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the single query_id parameter by calling it 'the query UUID', which is more informative than the schema's 'Query Id'. However, it does not explain format, how to find it, or any additional constraints beyond the schema's required flag.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action 'Start a Wdata query run' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like listing queries or getting results, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., query must exist) or how this fits into a workflow with get_query_result or cancel_query_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Export a document' without explaining how the export is delivered, whether it initiates a download, any permissions required, or what the output contains. This provides almost no behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary followed by an argument list with descriptions. Every sentence contributes information without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in context. It does not explain the purpose beyond 'export', lacks usage guidance, and provides no insight into what happens after invocation. While the output schema exists, the description fails to address basic selection criteria and behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 for parameter meaning. It provides basic descriptions for all three parameters: document_id as 'The document UUID', format with the allowed values, and options as 'Format-specific options (optional)'. This adds some meaning beyond the schema titles and enums, but the options description is vague and format merely repeats the enum values. It's adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'export' and a resource 'document,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that export other resources (e.g., export_file, export_spreadsheet, export_style_guide). It clearly conveys the primary action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools like get_document or other export tools, or any prerequisites or intended use cases. The usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. Given the 'patches' parameter implies potential mutations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise deprecation notice with clear alternatives, front-loaded with the most important information. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description doesn't explain how the shim works, which operations it supports, or what the return values look like. While it redirects to alternatives, it is incomplete as a standalone tool definition for direct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters. It doesn't explain 'operation', 'patches', 'slide_id', or 'presentation_id', leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state a specific verb+resource; instead it labels the tool as deprecated and a dispatcher. It does point to clear alternatives (workiva_list_presentation_slides, etc.), making its role as a backward-compatibility shim somewhat clear, but the actual operations performed remain vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'use workiva_list_presentation_layouts / workiva_list_presentation_slides / workiva_get_presentation_slide / workiva_update_presentation_slide' and explains this tool is kept as a backward-compatibility shim. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (only for legacy calls) and directs to the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not mention filtering, pagination, permissions, or what the response contains, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is maximally concise and easy to parse, even though it sacrifices substantive detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the minimal description is close to adequate for such a simple list operation. However, the lack of scope information and the ambiguity caused by the similarly named sibling tool leave notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description is not penalized for omitting non-existent parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Wdata files, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool workiva_wdata_files, so it falls short of full distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like workiva_wdata_get_file, workiva_wdata_delete_file, or workiva_wdata_upload_file. The description simply names the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Approve a task' without explaining side effects, permissions, state changes, or reversibility, which is inadequate for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action, with no wasted words. The argument block is straightforward, though minimal, but appropriate for a single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks behavioral and usage context. It doesn't explain what approval entails, prerequisites, or how it differs from other task actions. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing description of effects and selection criteria.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The task UUID' to the task_id parameter, providing a semantic type (UUID) that the schema's generic 'Task Id' lacks. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Approve a task' clearly states the verb and resource, and the verb 'approve' distinguishes it from sibling tools like reject_task and submit_task. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reject_task or submit_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, task states, or scenarios that warrant approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'bulk-edit' without explaining mutation impact, permission needs, reversibility, or error behavior. The edits parameter is described as 'bulk edit operations' but leaves the exact behavior opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a short argument list. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with an unstructured edits parameter and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the edit operation format, constraints, or output, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 names document_id as a UUID and edits as 'bulk edit operations,' but this is too vague to understand the structure of an edit operation. The array-of-objects shape is undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Bulk-edit sections within a document,' which is a specific verb (bulk-edit), resource (sections), and scope (within a document). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or copy individual sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workiva_batch_edit_rich_text or workiva_edit_table_structure. It lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Delete'. It does not disclose permanence, permissions, or effects on child content. With no annotations provided, the description fails to carry the transparency burden, though the destructive nature is implied by the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one action line plus a clean Args section. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification. For a simple delete tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits critical context for a destructive operation, such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, and there are no annotations to supplement. The output schema exists, but the description does not address side effects or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for a delete tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The document UUID' and 'The section UUID', clarifying the parameter formats beyond the schema's bare titles (Document Id, Section Id). However, it does not explain how to obtain these IDs or any constraints, leaving partial compensation for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a document section' with a clear verb (Delete) and resource (document section). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like get, create, copy, and bulk_edit on document sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bulk_edit_document_sections or copy_document_section. It simply states the action without any context on appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Get a single range link' with no mention that the operation is read-only, no discussion of error conditions, permissions, or whether it returns the link in a specific format. The verb 'get' implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Args list. There is no redundant text; however, it is arguably too sparse to provide substantive guidance, but conciseness itself is well handled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for invoking by ID. But it lacks context about how range links relate to spreadsheets/tables, how to obtain range_link_id, and when to choose this over sibling tools, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully identifies content_id as the spreadsheet UUID and table_id as the table UUID, which goes beyond the bare schema titles. However, range_link_id's description 'The range link ID' simply restates its property name, so the added semantics are uneven.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a single range link' clearly identifies the operation and resource. The word 'single' distinguishes it from workiva_list_range_links, though it does not explicitly clarify the distinction from related tools like workiva_get_range_link_destinations or explain what a range link is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as workiva_list_range_links for discovering range link IDs or workiva_edit_range_link for modifications. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description simply says 'Get details', implying a read operation but disclosing no error behavior, permissions, or side effects. No context on what happens for invalid UUIDs or whether cell contents are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is one line plus an Args list; every element is necessary. No filler or repetition of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema, so return format is covered, but for a tool among many siblings, the description should clarify that 'details' means sheet metadata/properties and not cell data. Args are documented, but the ambiguous scope leaves the tool incomplete for an agent deciding between this and workiva_read_cells.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and description adds minimal meaning by labeling each argument as a UUID. It does not explain how to discover these IDs or distinguish spreadsheet_id from sheet_id beyond their names, but it does provide a key type hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses explicit 'Get details for a single sheet', clearly distinguishing from list-oriented siblings like workiva_list_sheets and get_spreadsheet. However, 'details' is vague about whether it returns metadata vs content, so not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to choose this over workiva_list_sheets, workiva_get_spreadsheet, or workiva_read_cells. No exclusions or alternatives named; only states the tool's basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no details are given about pagination, ordering, access scoping, or the shape of the response. This is minimal behavioral disclosure, similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it could be seen as slightly under-specified for context, the concision itself is strong.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This simple list tool has no parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details like whether all organizations are returned or only those accessible to the user, or any ordering/filtering notes. Given the complexity, the description is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description need not add parameter details because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'organizations', clearly indicating the action and target. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_list_organization_users, but the resource name is distinct enough that the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no examples, and no context about the result set. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent without information on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List range links' and implies a read-only operation, but does not state whether results are paginated, require specific permissions, or have any side effects. This falls short of full disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. The Args block is a bit redundant with the schema but is structured and easy to parse. No filler or rambling.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be a spreadsheet table), how range links are related to other link tools, or what the list will contain. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 clarifies that content_id is the content/spreadsheet UUID and table_id is the table UUID, which adds meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it does not explain what a range link is or how the two IDs relate, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List range links on a table' clearly states the operation (list), the resource (range links), and the scope (on a table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_range_link or edit_range_link, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention related tools such as get_range_link, get_range_link_destinations, or edit_range_link, nor does it provide context for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, and the description fails to compensate. The word 'describe' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens if the query_id is invalid, or whether special permissions are required. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, avoiding redundant prose. The 'Args' section is clear, though the parameter explanation is thin. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, but it could have been slightly more expansive without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the output schema) and identifies the input needed. However, it lacks any mention of possible errors, prerequisites, or how the output schema is structured, which could leave the agent uncertain in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, query_id, is documented as 'The query ID,' which merely restates the parameter name and schema title. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should provide richer semantics—such as where to find the ID, its format, or examples—but it does not. The added value over the schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Describe a Wdata query's output schema.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and a specific resource ('output schema of a Wdata query'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_query (which retrieves query details) or validate_query. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this to inspect the columns a query will return before running it' or contrast with validate_query. No usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool's name. It does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, what kind of data is returned, or any required permissions, adding no meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single-purpose sentence and a minimal Args block. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. The structure is clean and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Though an output schema exists, the description is too terse to be contextually complete. It does not explain what a 'query' is in Wdata, what information is retrieved, or how this tool relates to sibling query operations (e.g., describe_query, validate_query). The single sentence leaves the agent with insufficient context for confident selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section ('query_id: The query ID') simply restates the schema property title 'Query Id' and the property name query_id, adding no additional semantic value. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description does not enrich or clarify it beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a single Wdata query'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_queries, create_query, or delete_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving it to the agent to infer when 'get' is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it gets a result, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as potential pagination, size limits, or whether the run must be complete. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. It has no unnecessary words and earns a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description omits contextual details like when a run result becomes available or any limitations on result size. It is minimally sufficient for a simple getter but lacks depth for an agent to anticipate edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning: it defines query_id as 'The query UUID' and run_id as 'The run ID.' This is only slightly more informative than the schema titles, and does not describe format or constraints beyond UUID for query_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the result of a Wdata query run,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_query_run or workiva_wdata_run_query, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the run being completed. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions JSON Patch, implying partial mutation, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversible changes, failure behavior, or what the update actually modifies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no redundant fluff. The 'Args:' block is a clear structure, though the overall density is low, making it less rich than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not described. The description is inadequate: it does not specify what fields can be patched, how JSON Patch is applied, or what the response contains. This is far from complete for an agent needing to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic meaning to both parameters (table_id and patches) that the schema lacks, since schema descriptions are absent. However, it only provides terse definitions without deeper format details or examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a Wdata table using JSON Patch, specifying both the action and the method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_create_table or workiva_get_table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or references to other update-related tools (e.g., workiva_update_table_properties).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the immediate action ('create') and parameter list, but omits any side effects, permissions required, behavior on naming conflicts, whether it returns an ID, or any other operational context. This is below the level needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement and a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and a relatively simple schema, the description lacks context around when to use it, how it fits into a workflow, and important caveats. While an output schema exists (so return values may be covered there), the missing usage guidance and behavioral details leave the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by clarifying 'kind' values and defining 'container' as 'Parent folder ID (optional)'. However, it does not elaborate on required formats, default behavior, or how to obtain the container ID, and with 0% schema description coverage, it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new file or folder in Workiva.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, delete, or update files, and the scope (file/folder) is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_import_file or workiva_create_document_section. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context—only the basic action statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Duplicate') but does not explain what duplication entails (e.g., whether it creates a new independent resource, what is returned, or any side effects or permissions required).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter. There is no filler or redundant information, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and minimal parameter detail, the description is under-specified. It lacks context about the duplication behavior, return value, and any constraints or side effects. Even with an output schema, the description should offer more operational context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides minimal parameter info (only a string type and title), so the description adds value by clarifying that 'rich_text_id' is a 'richText UUID'. This helps the agent understand the expected format, but the explanation is minimal and does not cover potential extra context like where to find the UUID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and identifies the exact resource ('rich text resource'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other sibling tool has a duplicate action for rich text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related tools, or scenarios where duplication is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of potential side effects, permissions, pagination, or behavior when no destinations exist. The description is too terse to be fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the main action. The args list is structured clearly. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, so it loses a point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adequately states the purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a simple read tool with complete args, it is minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'content_id: The content/spreadsheet UUID'). This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but the explanations are shallow and do not clarify how to obtain the IDs or their relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List destinations for a range link' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like workiva_list_range_links and workiva_get_range_link by focusing on destinations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it avoids side effects, what permissions are required, or what the response contains beyond 'details.' The expand parameter hints at subresource inclusion but lacks elaboration on default behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a simple one-line summary followed by a clear argument list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple fetch operation with an output schema, so return details are not needed in the description. However, the description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing to obtain spreadsheet_id from a list call) or how this relates to other spreadsheet tools. It is minimally viable but lacks guiding context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only type and default, but the description adds meaningful semantics: spreadsheet_id is identified as 'the spreadsheet UUID' and expand is explained as 'comma-separated subresources to include' with an example. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves spreadsheet details, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like workiva_list_spreadsheets (list all spreadsheets) and workiva_get_sheet (get a sheet within a spreadsheet), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as workiva_list_spreadsheets for listing or workiva_get_sheet for individual sheets. No usage scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits—it does not confirm read-only safety, mention required permissions, or describe output behavior. The agent must infer from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and efficient, front-loading the purpose and then providing the argument clarification. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter get operation, the description is minimally sufficient, especially with the output schema available. However, it omits any usage context or behavioral caveats, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for style_guide_id, but the description clarifies the parameter is a UUID, adding semantic information beyond the bare type and title. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get style guide details.' It clearly indicates the tool retrieves information about a style guide, and is distinguishable from sibling export/import tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workiva_export_style_guide or workiva_get_document. The description simply states the operation without any contextual scaffolding or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get row properties' with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, return format, pagination, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is stated in the first line, and the parameter explanation is minimal and clear. There is no wasted text; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, in the context of many sibling tools, the description does not clarify what 'row properties' specifically means or how it differs from alternatives like get_table_properties or get_table_columns. It is adequate but has gaps in contextual differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the parameter (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args section explaining 'table_id: The table UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's type/title. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing the agent with the required semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('row properties for a table'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_table_properties or get_table_columns because it targets rows specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The wording is specific enough for an agent to understand the primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for selection among the many sibling table-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Import' and lists parameters, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new file or overwrites), required permissions, or the return structure beyond having an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of a single leading sentence and a clear, tabular Args list. Every line serves a purpose with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks context on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), and differentiation from similar file tools. It is minimally complete for a 4-parameter tool but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Display name in Workiva', 'Original filename', 'Spreadsheet or Document', 'Local path to the file to upload'). Since schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), this extra context is valuable and compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Import a local file (xlsx/docx) into Workiva.' This specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_upload_file or workiva_import_style_guide. However, 'into Workiva' is slightly broad, lacking explicit mention of Spreadsheet or Document targets in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_create_file or workiva_wdata_upload_file. The description only states the action and parameters without any contextual cues, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'lists files' and explains parameter formats, but it does not disclose how files are returned (e.g., metadata only, pagination behavior, whether it includes trashed files, permission requirements). The read-only nature of a list operation is implied, but without annotations, more detail is expected for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the 'Args' section succinctly lists parameters without extraneous information. Every sentence contributes meaningful value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears simple, and the output schema likely documents return values. However, the description lacks context about the scope of 'files' (e.g., which file types are included) and how this listing relates to more specific listing tools. Given the presence of siblings and no annotations, the description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples. It clarifies the OData filter syntax, order_by format, and the default for max_results. The guidance is practical, though it could be expanded with a list of valid filter fields or acceptable values for 'kind', but the provided examples are sufficient for basic usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List files in the Workiva workspace.' It defines the scope as the entire workspace, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like workiva_list_documents or workiva_list_spreadsheets, which may be more specific types of file listings. This means the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this specific tool versus alternatives such as workiva_list_documents or workiva_list_spreadsheets. It does not mention whether this tool returns all file types or whether more specific tools should be preferred. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the run is asynchronous, whether it returns a run ID, or any side effects or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-line purpose and a simple parameter list. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, how to track the chain run, whether the operation is asynchronous, or any preconditions, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 basic explanations for all three parameters (chain UUID, optional environment ID, optional key-value runtime inputs) but lacks detail on input formatting or requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Trigger a chain run' uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('chain run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like workiva_list_chains or workiva_get_chain. It unambiguously states the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., when to list chain runs or get chain details. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the JSON Patch mechanism but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or behavior on invalid patches. It only says 'update', which implies mutation but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is formatted compactly, adding parameter context without excessive prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward update, the description covers the core operation. However, it doesn't explain how the patch array is applied, what valid operations are, or any constraints. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds meaning: 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID' clarifies the ID format, and 'patches: JSON Patch array' explains the structure. However, 'slide_id' is described only as 'The slide ID', adding no format detail beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a presentation slide via JSON Patch' with a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling get/list slide tools, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other update tools in the sibling list. It only describes the operation itself, not prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and operational traits. It states only that a query is created, but does not clarify persistence, required permissions, potential validation, or whether the query is executed immediately. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear args list. Every line earns its place without filler, making it efficiently structured and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a create operation. It omits prerequisites (e.g., a connection or workspace), potential side effects, and the relationship to related operations like validate_query or run_query. The tool is simple but the description provides no surrounding context to guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section adds meaning by labeling 'name' as 'Query name' and 'sql' as 'SQL statement.' This provides essential semantic value beyond the schema, but it remains minimal and does not explain optionality, format requirements, or acceptable SQL syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Wdata query.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queries, get_query, delete_query, and run_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the query is immediately run or only saved, or any exclusions compared to validate_query or describe_query. The usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export a spreadsheet' without explaining what the output looks like, whether it returns a file or URL, any side effects, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and followed by a compact argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the two-line format is ideal for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, one enum) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. It doesn't add extra context like return value handling, but the output schema likely covers that. The absence of any cautionary notes is acceptable for a straightforward export operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly defining spreadsheet_id as 'The spreadsheet UUID' and format as 'xlsx, pdf, or csv'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and enum values. It doesn't mention default behavior (xlsx), but the schema already provides the default, so the description is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export a spreadsheet' clearly states the verb and resource, and the spreadsheet-specific target distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_export_document and workiva_export_file. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other spreadsheet operations such as workiva_get_spreadsheet, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply names the action and arguments, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Among many sibling export/import tools, this lack of direction makes it harder for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what exactly is returned, whether permissions are required, or how errors are handled. There is no context about the response structure or any side effects, making it minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single action sentence followed by a brief Args block. Every line earns its place by stating the core purpose and the two required parameters. There is no redundant information, and the structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and the parameters, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks any usage context or mention of error behavior, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 lists 'document_id: The document UUID' and 'section_id: The section UUID,' which adds only the fact that these are UUIDs. This is a marginal clarification beyond the schema's type 'string' and does not explain what a document or section is, or how the identifiers relate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single document section,' which uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document section'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_document_sections (which lists sections) and create/delete/copy operations. The inclusion of document_id and section_id clarifies the scope as retrieving one specific section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as workiva_list_document_sections or workiva_get_document. It neither mentions prerequisites nor scenarios where this tool is preferable. The usage is only implied by the action itself, which is insufficient per the rubric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and fails to mention potential side effects (none expected for a get), permissions required, return format, or error behavior. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus a parameter reference. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get column properties') and contains no redundant or filler words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'column properties' entails, whether the table must exist, or how this relates to the broader Wdata workflow. The output schema covers return values, but additional context would help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, table_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds 'The table UUID', which clarifies the expected format (UUID). This provides some value beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate on how to obtain the UUID or any constraints (e.g., must be a Wdata table). It partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get column properties for a table' clearly states the specific verb (get) and resource (column properties of a table). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workiva_get_table_properties (table-level properties) and workiva_get_table_rows (row data), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workiva_get_table_properties or workiva_get_table_rows. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention required permissions, or describe return format/pagination. Only the verb 'list' hints at non-mutating behavior, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the 'Args: org_id: Organization ID' section is redundant with the schema and adds little value, so it is not entirely without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema available, the description need not explain return values. For a simple list operation, it mentions the scope (organization) and resource (roles), but omits details like pagination, auth requirements, or role definitions. It is minimally viable but lacks richer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only says 'org_id: Organization ID', which essentially repeats the parameter name and schema title 'Org Id'. It adds no meaningful detail about format, constraints, or usage beyond what is already obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List roles in an organization' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_list_organization_users and workiva_list_organization_solutions, which target different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when roles need to be listed for an organization, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear from the tool name and description, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without mentioning pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or even explicitly confirming it is read-only. The description adds no context beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, and it front-loads the purpose before the args list. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single required parameter and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it gives no context about pagination, filtering, or error cases. For a simple tool, it is mostly complete but leaves gaps about edge cases and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 restates 'org_id' as 'Organization ID', which adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's title and type. It does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints, failing to add value for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'List users in an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities (roles, solutions, organizations) by specifying 'users'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implicitly suggests usage for retrieving organization users, but it does not state exclusions or compare with sibling tools, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'publish' means, potential side effects, or permission requirements. The publish_type enum values add slight context but not enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple param set and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It does not discuss the publication process or implications, but that is partially implied by the tool name and publish_type options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section explains each parameter and clarifies publish_type values, especially 'ownLinks (links owned by this file)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though selectedLinks is not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Publish links in a spreadsheet, document, or presentation" clearly states the action and target resource. It is specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling link-related tools like edit_range_link or create_destination_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists arguments without contextual advice or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or any state constraints for tasks. The tool is a mutation, but the description only says 'via JSON Patch' without further elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear args list. There is no redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for basic invocation (knows the parameters and purpose), and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are critical for an update tool with many sibling task actions. The omission of when-to-use guidance reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates minimally by explaining task_id as 'The task UUID' and patches as 'JSON Patch array.' This adds meaning beyond schema property names, but it does not explain the structure of JSON Patch or what fields are commonly patched, leaving partial ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a task via JSON Patch.' It identifies a specific verb ('update') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creation, deletion, submission, approval, rejection, and reassignment by specifying the JSON Patch method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool relative to other task actions such as submit, approve, reject, or reassign. The description does not provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and the JSON Patch mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Cancel' without mentioning side effects (e.g., irreversibility, only running runs can be canceled), error conditions, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one clear sentence followed by a compact parameter list. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the basic elements are present. However, given the lack of annotations and the complexity of Wdata query runs, the description omits important context like typical usage scenarios, potential errors, and whether the operation is idempotent or requires a specific run state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds 'query_id: The query UUID' and 'run_id: The run ID', which clarifies the roles slightly beyond the schema's titles, but does not explain how to obtain or validate these IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Cancel a Wdata query run' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wdata_run_query and wdata_get_query_result by being the only cancel operation for query runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the run is in a cancellable state or if there are any prerequisites. It only implies usage through the verb 'cancel', but lacks context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns an unsupported message rather than performing deletion, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the message content or whether any side effects occur, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately states the unusual behavior. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and is minimally adequate, especially with an output schema present. However, the total lack of parameter explanation and usage guidance makes it incomplete for a tool with one required parameter and no annotations. It leaves the agent to guess how to invoke it meaningfully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'file_id' parameter. The tool name suggests it expects a file ID, but it is unclear how that ID is used when the tool only returns an unsupported message. This is a critical omission for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Return the explicit REST unsupported message' for Workiva file deletion. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from actual deletion tools like wdata_delete_file or delete_document_section. The unusual behavior is explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it handles the unsupported deletion case but does not state 'use this when you need to delete a file' or mention any alternatives. An agent would not know if this is a substitute for deletion or a way to discover the API's limitation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals it is a shim that dispatches to other tools, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, return behavior, or what happens when called. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It delivers the essential deprecation message and alternative tools efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated shim, the description is adequate: it tells the agent to avoid it and names replacements. However, it does not explain what the tool does or what the parameters/outputs mean, so it is only minimally complete for an agent that might still need to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The meaning of 'data', 'revision', 'operation', and 'rich_text_id' is left entirely to the schema, which also lacks descriptions. The description makes no attempt to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim and names the specific replacement tools. This distinguishes it from siblings and gives a specific purpose, though it does not describe the actual rich-text functionality itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_read_rich_text_paragraphs / workiva_batch_edit_rich_text / workiva_duplicate_rich_text', providing clear instructions on when not to use this tool and pointing to the exact alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List'. With no annotations, it does not disclose pagination, authentication, output format, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and to the point, though slightly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity is low (zero params) and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what a Wdata connection is and how this tool relates to other Wdata tools, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is empty and the description need not compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Wdata connections', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables, list_queries, and list_files. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description merely states the action without indicating use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given and the description merely says 'Delete a sheet'. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether there are cascade effects on other data, or if special authorization is required. For a destructive operation, this level of transparency is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and presents parameters in a clean list. Every sentence provides necessary information without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core operation and parameter meanings are covered, but the description lacks contextual details such as permanence of deletion, potential dependencies, or error handling. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but behavioral context for a destructive action is missing, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: spreadsheet_id is 'The spreadsheet UUID' and sheet_id is 'The sheet UUID to delete'. This adds meaningful type and role information beyond the bare schema property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'a sheet from a spreadsheet', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools such as create_sheet, copy_sheet, list_sheets, and get_sheet. The purpose is unambiguous and directly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any warnings about irreversible deletion or required permissions. The description only states the operation without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (returns a download URL) and lists the accepted formats, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens on failure. This is minimal but adequate for a simple export operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present), and the description explains the return value and all parameters. It could be more helpful by clarifying its scope relative to other export tools, but for a straightforward export operation, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful definitions for both parameters: file_id as 'The file UUID' and format with the list of acceptable values. This adds value beyond the raw schema and covers all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports a file from Workiva and returns a download URL, providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling export tools like workiva_export_document or workiva_export_spreadsheet, the generic 'file' resource and the mention of a download URL differentiate it enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for generic file exports, nor does it warn against using it for documents or spreadsheets, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention output format, side effects, permissions, or whether it returns data directly or creates a file. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, immediately stating the purpose and parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the parameter's meaning. However, it lacks any context about expected output or usage among siblings. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description alone is minimal for making an informed tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite zero schema description coverage, the Args section describes style_guide_id as 'The style guide UUID', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition. It tells the agent exactly what value to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Export' with the resource 'a style guide', clearly specifying the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_style_guide and get_style_guide, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_style_guide or export_document. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by explaining the 'expand' parameter and that document_id is a UUID, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), what resource types are supported, or any error handling behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a brief parameter listing. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and both parameters adequately. It lacks usage guidance and context about related tools, but given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explains document_id as 'the document UUID' and expand as 'comma-separated subresources' with an example, which provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves document details, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like workiva_list_documents or workiva_export_document, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_documents is for browsing or export_document is for downloading, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Get details' without specifying what details are returned, error behavior for invalid IDs, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, the lack of this context is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear first sentence and a single parameter clarification. No unnecessary words or repeated schema information, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return-value details are not needed. However, the description lacks any context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and 'details' is vague. It is minimally adequate but does not fully support an agent's decision-making in a large sibling tool set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The file UUID' for file_id, clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's generic string type. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and this is the only semantic provided. It helps but is minimal for a single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get details for a specific file by ID', clearly identifying the action (get), resource (file), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_list_files (list multiple) and workiva_create_file (create), and from workiva_wdata_get_file which operates on a different file type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details for a specific file ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It provides minimal context about selecting this tool over similar ones like workiva_get_document or workiva_list_files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'List nodes' without revealing any behavioral aspects such as pagination, result structure, dependencies, or whether it returns all nodes or a subset. For a read-only list operation, some disclosure of output or limitations would be expected, but none is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a single imperative sentence followed by a brief two-item Args list. No extraneous information is present, and every sentence earns its place. The structure is clean and instantly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple list tool with only two parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the core purpose and parameters. The only gaps are lack of usage guidance and behavioral traits (pagination, ordering), but these are less critical for a straightforward list operation, so a slightly above-baseline score is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists only parameter names and titles ('Run Id', 'Chain Id') with no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explicitly defining each argument: 'chain_id: The chain UUID' and 'run_id: The chain run ID'. This adds meaningful semantic value, clarifying that chain_id is a UUID and run_id is a run identifier, so the description makes good use of the Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List nodes within a chain run.' It specifies the resource (chain run nodes) and the verb (list), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools such as workiva_list_chain_runs or workiva_get_chain, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: the tool lists nodes for a given chain run, requiring chain_id and run_id. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the chain must already exist). This is acceptable but minimal, placing it at implied usage rather than clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely repeats the action ('List documents') without disclosing any behavioral nuances such as read-only status, pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. The example filter helps, but that pertains to parameters rather than behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose and two parameter explanations. Every element earns its place, with no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple scope with an output schema, but the description leaves gaps: no mention of which workspace is referenced, no explicit statement that this is a read-only listing operation, and no details on default pagination despite max_results being present. It is adequate for basic use but lacks context an agent might need for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters. For 'filter,' it gives a concrete OData example ('name contains ACFR'), which adds meaningful usage context beyond the bare schema. 'max_results' is also described as 'Maximum results to return,' providing clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List documents in the workspace,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like workiva_list_workspaces or workiva_list_organization_users. It unambiguously identifies the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it reference any of the sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's function and parameter, without disclosing read-only behavior, return format, ordering, pagination, or potential errors. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, leading with the main purpose and followed only by a brief parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return details are unnecessary. However, the description lacks any usage context, such as examples, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling operations. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent navigating many similar list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section clarifies that spreadsheet_id is 'The spreadsheet UUID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's simple field name. This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List sheets within a spreadsheet' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets (which lists spreadsheets) and get_sheet (which retrieves a specific sheet).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Neither annotations nor the description disclose safety or side-effect information. The description only says 'List' which implies read-only, but it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or any limits beyond the max_results parameter. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence for the purpose and two lines for parameters. No filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with just two parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete: it doesn't specify how the workspace is selected or any behavior regarding the result set (e.g., capped at max_results). However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the simple parameter list keeps the description reasonably adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains filter as an OData filter with an example, adding value beyond the schema's bare property names. max_results is described as 'Max results to return', which is only slightly more informative than the title. Given 0% schema description coverage, the compensation is minimal but present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'List tasks in the workspace' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from related task operations like workiva_get_task or workiva_create_task. The description is unambiguous about the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_get_task or other list tools. The verb 'List' implies enumeration, but the description doesn't mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait — that this is a backward-compatibility shim dispatching to single-verb tools — but it omits operational details such as side effects, how the operation is selected, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact two-sentence notice with the deprecation warning front-loaded in capital letters. Every word earns its place; the markdown header formatting is slightly unconventional but does not harm clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but all five parameters remain undocumented and the mapping of `operation` values to the four target tools is absent. The description is sufficient to steer agents away, but insufficient if the shim must actually be invoked.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. The word 'dispatches' implies the `operation` parameter selects among target verbs, but content_id, table_id, data, and range_link_id are never explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to four named alternatives (workiva_list_range_links, workiva_get_range_link, workiva_edit_range_link, workiva_get_range_link_destinations), which gives some purpose clarity. However, it never states what range-link operations the tool actually performs or what a range link is, so the underlying function remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly marks the tool as DEPRECATED and names four specific replacement tools to use instead. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and concrete alternatives, making the redirection unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a shim and dispatches to other tools, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe side effects, read-only vs. destructive nature, or how dispatch is determined (e.g., via operation parameter).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, yet the description gives no information about how to use it (e.g., which operation maps to which behavior). It's sufficient as a deprecation notice, but if invoked directly, the agent lacks critical context about parameter semantics and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (operation, name, index, sheet_id, target_spreadsheet_id, spreadsheet_id). The description only directs to alternatives, leaving the agent with no meaningful parameter semantics beyond raw property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools (list, get, create, delete, copy). While it doesn't explicitly outline its own capabilities, it names the alternatives, which conveys its purpose as a multiplexer for sheet operations. This distinguishes it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_list_sheets / workiva_get_sheet / workiva_create_sheet / workiva_delete_sheet / workiva_copy_sheet.' This is direct when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the old endpoint is dead and this fans out, and that it aggregates results. However, it does not disclose failure modes, partial success handling, idempotency, or any side effects beyond refreshing. This is minimal behavioral context for a batch mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, explains the deprecated endpoint issue, and closes with an Args section. It avoids fluff and each part serves a purpose, though the Args section could be slightly more detailed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one optional param) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the necessary context: what it does, why it exists, and the input. However, it omits details about error handling, partial failures, or how results are aggregated, which could be important for a batch operation. This keeps it at a minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, connection_ids, with 0% description coverage. The description adds a one-line Args section ('List of connection IDs to refresh'), but it essentially restates the parameter name and provides no additional formatting, requiredness, or edge-case guidance. This does not adequately compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Batch refresh') and resource ('multiple Wdata connections') with a specific mechanism ('fanning out to the per-connection endpoint'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling workiva_wdata_refresh_connection by clarifying it's a batch operation and notes the deprecated endpoint is dead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the context: the old batch endpoint is dead and this function now fans out to the working per-connection endpoint. It references the sibling workiva_wdata_refresh_connection as the base endpoint, implying this is the batch version. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions (e.g., not for single connections), but the name and 'batch' wording make the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deprecated and is a shim that dispatches to the named tools, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what operations it supports, how it maps to the target tools, or any side effects or limitations, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences, with the DEPRECATED warning front-loaded and the replacement tools listed. It wastes no words. However, it is structured as a single paragraph and could have been improved with a brief note on parameter meaning without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. It successfully redirects users to the modern tools, but it does not explain the shim's own interface or valid operations. As a deprecation notice it is adequate, but as a tool description it leaves questions about invocation and parameter semantics unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (operation, connection_id, connection_ids). It provides no explanation of how these parameters are used or how they relate to the dispatcher behavior. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim and names the specific tools it dispatches to. While its own function is not explicitly described as 'list/get/refresh connections', the reference to the single-verb tools makes its purpose clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming replacements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to use the alternatives ('use workiva_wdata_list_connections / workiva_wdata_get_connection / workiva_wdata_refresh_connection / workiva_wdata_batch_refresh_connections') and states it is only kept for backward compatibility. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, fully differentiating it from the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List Wdata tables' and defines max_results, but does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a single parameter definition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it does not clarify the scope of 'Wdata tables' or differentiate from related table operations, leaving some ambiguity given the large sibling set. It is minimally viable but lacks contextual depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'Max results to return' for the max_results parameter, which the schema does not explain. This provides necessary meaning for the parameter. However, it does not specify constraints like maximum allowed value or behavior when omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Wdata tables,' clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_get_table, create_table, and delete_table by focusing on the list action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workiva_wdata_get_table or workiva_wdata_tables. The description does not mention workspace scoping, prerequisites, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deprecated status and that it dispatches to other tools, but provides no details on operation semantics, side effects, permissions, or result behavior. The mapping from the 'operation' parameter to the replacement tools is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and names the exact replacement tools. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated shim, redirecting to alternatives is the core requirement, and the output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, it lacks a mapping of operation values to the three replacement tools and gives no guidance for someone who must invoke the shim directly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters. The description does not explain query_id, run_id, or operation, nor does it clarify how operation values map to the three replacement tools. The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to three named replacement tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its deprecation status, but it does not state a specific functional verb/resource (e.g., 'runs a query') beyond dispatching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_wdata_run_query / workiva_wdata_get_query_result / workiva_wdata_cancel_query_run' and explains it is kept for backward compatibility. This gives unambiguous guidance to prefer the named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It merely states 'Upload a local file to Wdata' without explaining what happens on success, whether it overwrites existing files, or any error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear action statement and a compact argument list. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter upload tool, the description covers the basic action but omits return behavior, prerequisites, and potential side effects. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description still lacks enough context for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a bare 'File Path' string, so the description's 'Local file path (absolute)' adds crucial constraints (local filesystem, absolute path) that are not present in the structured schema. For a single parameter, this is useful and compensates reasonably for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Upload') and resource ('local file to Wdata'), accurately distinguishing it from sibling tools like workiva_wdata_get_file or workiva_wdata_delete_file. The action is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., needing a table or connection first). With many sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent without a clear decision framework.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools and is deprecated, which is important contextual information. However, it does not reveal whether the underlying operations are read-only or mutating, nor does it describe side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The dispatch behavior is explained, but other safety-relevant traits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the deprecation warning in caps. It lists the replacement tools and clearly explains the shim role in two sentences with no wasted verbiage. The structure effectively communicates both the warning and the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated tool, the most critical context—which tools to use instead—is fully provided. However, the tool still has 5 parameters and no user guidance for invoking the shim itself. The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics and behavioral details are incomplete. Given the deprecation notice, this is acceptable for selection but insufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description does not compensate at all. It provides no explanation of what 'filter', 'run_id', 'chain_id', 'operation', or 'max_results' mean or how they relate to the dispatch behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no value to the schema, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to workiva_list_chains, workiva_get_chain, workiva_list_chain_runs, and workiva_list_chain_run_nodes. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives and conveys its purpose as a legacy dispatcher. However, it does not state the specific domain operations (e.g., 'list chains') directly, relying on the named replacement tools to imply functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_list_chains / workiva_get_chain / ...' and explains that the tool is kept only for backward compatibility. This is a clear directive to prefer the alternative tools, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this shim.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions requirements, or reversibility. It only says 'modify to change them' without explaining consequences of modification, conflicts between assign/revoke, or auth needs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise and well-structured as an Args list. It includes necessary parameter explanations and examples without excessive verbosity, though the format could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool involves dual operations and four parameters, and the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, and does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., overlapping assign/revoke). The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all four parameters, including the meaning of the operation enum and provides concrete JSON examples for to_assign and to_revoke. This adds significant value over the raw schema, though it could clarify conditions like whether to_assign is ignored when operation='get'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Get or modify file permissions." This distinguishes it from sibling file management tools like workiva_get_file or workiva_update_file, which handle file content rather than permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the operation parameter ('get' to list, 'modify' to change), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets details, with no mention of return format, permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a read tool, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a terse parameter list. Every word earns its place—no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter) and the presence of an output schema defining return values, the description is adequately complete. It lacks only non-essential context like error cases or permissions, which are not critical for a simple get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 adds 'The presentation UUID' to clarify the parameter type, but does not explain how to find the ID or provide additional context beyond the schema's basic type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get presentation details' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_presentation_slide and list_presentation_slides. It is unambiguous about what it retrieves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a presentation by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any context for selection. The distinction is inferred only from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention return format, error handling, or required permissions, providing minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args section. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It lacks additional context like permissions or related task details, but this is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only shows task_id as a string with no description, but the description adds 'The task UUID,' clarifying the expected format and semantic meaning beyond the schema's type alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a single task' with a specific verb and resource, and the Args section specifies task_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, create_task, and delete_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferable scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies the empty target_document_id behavior, but doesn't disclose whether the copy is deep, whether the source is modified, permission requirements, or side effects. 'Copy' implies non-destructive but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus an args list, with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. However, it lacks detail on edge cases like copying nested sections, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it minimally complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args block provides clear semantics for each parameter, including the default behavior of target_document_id. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some additional nuance (e.g., required vs optional) is left to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Copy a document section within or to another document' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_document_section, delete_document_section, and get_document_section.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'within or to another document' but provides no explicit when-to-use context or alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over create_document_section or bulk_edit_document_sections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does disclose that the tool is a shim that dispatches to other tools, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, required scopes, or error behavior. Since the actual behavior is delegated to the named tools, some transparency is gained, but the description remains thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED', then lists alternatives and states its shim role. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a deprecated shim, the description adequately redirects users. The output schema likely covers return values, and the alternative tools provide implementation details. However, for an agent that must actually invoke this tool, the lack of parameter semantics and behavior details makes the description incomplete. It is sufficient for guidance, but not for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (table_id, operation, patches). The meaning of 'operation' defaulting to 'get' and the structure of 'patches' are left entirely to the schema, which provides only names and types. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools, and it lists those tools explicitly. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools and clarifies its role, though it does not directly state a specific action (e.g., 'get/update table properties') until the alternative tools are referenced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_get_table_properties / workiva_update_table_properties / ...' and explains that it is kept for backward compatibility. This gives clear guidance to prefer the alternative tools and only use this one for legacy compatibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is deprecated and dispatches to other tools, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that using it can perform destructive operations (e.g., create/update/delete), nor does it explain how the 'operation' parameter drives that behavior. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the key warning 'DEPRECATED' front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure immediately communicates the essential action (do not use this; use the alternatives).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete as a deprecation notice, but it offers no operational guidance if the shim must be invoked. With 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema explanation, an agent would be lost if forced to use this tool. It effectively tells the agent to avoid it, but does not make the tool itself usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description itself mentions no parameters, defaults, or how the 'operation' parameter selects a target tool. The description adds zero value for understanding the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific replacement tools (workiva_list_tasks, workiva_get_task, workiva_create_task, etc.), making its purpose and scope immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to use workiva_list_tasks / workiva_get_task / workiva_create_task / workiva_update_task / workiva_delete_task instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. This is the strongest possible usage guideline for a deprecated tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and gives an example, but omits information about permissions, error handling, partial application, idempotency, or reversibility—significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the purpose sentence and two-line Args section contain no redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place, achieving clarity in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and there's no mention of how the tool handles invalid patches or nonexistent file IDs. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds valuable meaning: file_id is a UUID and patches is a JSON Patch array with a concrete replace example. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it doesn't enumerate all patch operation possibilities.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a file using JSON Patch operations' with concrete examples (rename, move), which specifies the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like workiva_create_file, workiva_delete_file, and workiva_get_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool name and patch operation examples, but the description doesn't contrast with other file manipulation tools or state exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is deprecated and functions as a shim that dispatches to other tools, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it does not detail any side effects or mode of operation beyond dispatch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED', and every sentence earns its place. It clearly and efficiently conveys the deprecation and alternative tools without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no schema coverage, this description is incomplete for actual invocation. While it serves well as a deprecation notice, it lacks operational details such as valid operations or parameter semantics, making it insufficient for any backward-compatibility use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about the six parameters (sql, name, patches, query_id, operation, max_results). It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly labels the tool as deprecated and a backward-compatibility shim, and explicitly lists the alternative single-verb tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to more specific tools, but it doesn't directly state what the tool does beyond being a dispatcher.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs 'use workiva_wdata_list_queries / ...' and explains it is 'Kept as a backward-compatibility shim', providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and naming alternatives. This is an exemplary usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'validate' entails—whether it executes the query, returns a success boolean, or reports errors. It does not mention side effects or expected outcome, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a simple arg list. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description alone is sparse. It omits information about return values, error handling, and the validation process. An output schema exists but its content is not visible in the description, so the description should have been more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only parameter names and defaults with 0% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics: query_id validates an existing query, sql is raw SQL used when query_id is absent. This compensates for the schema gap, though it could be more explicit about both being optional and empty-string defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Validate a Wdata query by ID or raw SQL' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from related query tools like create, run, and describe, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two usage modes (by query_id or raw SQL) and notes that sql is used if query_id is not provided, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List sections within a document' without mentioning whether it returns all sections, pagination, sorting, required permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a one-line purpose and a single-line parameter explanation. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with a single parameter and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The description provides the essential information needed to invoke the tool, though it could briefly mention what kind of sections are listed (e.g., all sections vs top-level).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that explains document_id as 'The document UUID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic title 'Document Id'. This clarifies the expected format for the single required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'sections within a document', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like workiva_list_documents (lists documents) and workiva_get_document_section (gets a single section).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as getting a single section or creating sections. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states the function and does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, pagination behavior, or return-value specifics. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a single-line parameter definition. No filler or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It omits details like pagination or exact output shape, but the output schema compensates, and the tool's simplicity lowers the need for extensive exposition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains org_id as 'Organization ID', adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. The single parameter is simple and adequately clarified by this description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (solutions) with a scope qualifier ('enabled for an organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organization_users and list_organization_roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve enabled solutions for a given org, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state when to use it vs. others. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deprecated and 'dispatches to the single-verb tools above', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe what happens on invocation (which operation runs, side effects, error handling, or return behavior).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with '# DEPRECATED', lists the replacement tools, and adds a single explanatory sentence. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse and act upon.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated shim, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent not to use this tool and points to the exact alternatives. While the shim's own operational details are absent, the openai output schema and the explicit redirect mitigate the gap. It lacks parameter semantics, but as a deprecation notice it fulfills its main contextual purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters (name, edits, index, operation, section_id, document_id, target_document_id). The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean, which operations are available, or how they map to the underlying tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool is DEPRECATED and identifies it as a backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to specific single-verb tools (workiva_list_document_sections, workiva_get_document_section, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from those sibling tools and conveys a specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to 'use workiva_list_document_sections / workiva_get_document_section / workiva_create_document_section / ...' instead, and explains the shim is kept only for backward compatibility. This gives definitive guidance on when not to use this tool and which alternatives to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says "List memberships" with no disclosure of read-only behavior, pagination, return format, authorization requirements, or what exactly constitutes a membership. The verb "List" implies read-only, but this is not explicit, and there is no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is clearly formatted and provides the necessary parameter semantics without redundancy or wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description plus schema is mostly complete. Given there is an output schema, return values need not be described in prose. However, it lacks any note about behavior that might vary (e.g., whether memberships include nested group memberships or are limited to direct members), and it does not mention pagination. This leaves a small gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: workspace_id as "Workspace ID" and group_id as "Group ID (optional — limits to a group's memberships)." This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the optional grouping filter and the required workspace context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: "List memberships in a workspace or workspace group." This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like workiva_list_workspace_groups (which lists groups) and workiva_list_organization_users (which lists users). The scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose and parameter descriptions: to get memberships, call this tool with the required workspace_id and optionally filter by group_id. However, there is no explicit "when to use vs alternatives" or mention of scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, so it does not fully guide selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool's behavior as a dispatcher to other tools and flags its deprecation. This is sufficient for a shim, but it doesn't detail what happens with unknown operation values or any potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every word adds value. It avoids padding and delivers the critical directive immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers deprecation and alternatives, but it omits operational details about how the operation parameter maps to the dispatched tools. Given the schema has no parameter descriptions, this leaves a gap for an agent that might still need to invoke the shim correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'operation' or 'style_guide_id' parameters beyond implying dispatch behavior. It does not clarify valid operation values (e.g., get, export, import) or the meaning of style_guide_id, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's default and names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools (workiva_get_style_guide, workiva_export_style_guide, workiva_import_style_guide). It identifies its role and distinguishes itself from the recommended siblings, though it lacks a direct verb+resource phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to use the three alternative tools instead, providing immediate, unambiguous guidance on when not to use this tool and which tools to prefer. This is a clear exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the empty target_spreadsheet_id default (copy within source), but does not disclose permissions required, whether the copy is independent/complete, or any side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, naming of the copied sheet). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact Args list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core functionality and parameters are covered, the description lacks important contextual details for a copy operation, such as whether it creates a new sheet, how conflicts are handled, or if data/formulas are copied intact. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the absence of annotations and these operational details leaves the description adequate yet incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no per-parameter descriptions), but the description compensates with an explicit Args section that explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id (source), sheet_id (sheet to copy), and target_spreadsheet_id (destination, empty = within source). This adds full meaning beyond the raw schema, including the default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: copying a sheet within the same spreadsheet or to a target spreadsheet. It uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('sheet'), and differentiates the two main use cases. Among siblings, there is no other 'copy_sheet' tool, and the description is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when copying a sheet within or across spreadsheets. It indirectly excludes alternatives like 'create_sheet' or 'delete_sheet' by focusing on duplication. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which would be stronger guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether any presentation-level permissions are needed. It lacks explicit behavioral detail, though the operation is inherently safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence and a compact Args section. No wasted words; every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema likely handles that. Slightly missing usage guidance prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains 'presentation_id: The presentation UUID', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title 'Presentation Id'. This adequately compensates for the missing schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List slides in a presentation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_presentation_slide (retrieves a single slide) and list_presentation_layouts (lists layouts, not slides).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing slides in a presentation but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple tool, the context is clear but not fully elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description discloses the deprecation, backward-compatibility role, and dispatch behavior. It tells the agent this tool is a shim and routes to specific tools, which is sufficient behavioral transparency for a deprecated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, immediately front-loaded with DEPRECATED, and goes straight to the point. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure (deprecation notice followed by alternatives) is ideal for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated shim, the description is complete: it tells the agent to not use this tool and points to the specific replacement tools. Given the output schema exists and the replacement tools are well-defined, the agent has everything needed to make the correct choice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the parameters (org_id, user_id, operation). Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent must guess how these parameters map to the dispatched operations. This is a significant gap, though mitigated by the deprecation warning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb tools, and it lists the exact replacement tools. It does not describe a specific operational behavior, but that is intentional for a shim, and it effectively distinguishes itself from the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to use the listed tools instead (workiva_list_organizations, workiva_get_organization, etc.), giving clear alternatives and when-not-to-use guidance. This is exactly what usage guidelines should provide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a shim and dispatches to the single-verb tools, which is a clear behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explain how the 'operation' parameter maps to those tools or any side effects, but for a deprecated shim this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED', and lists the replacement tools in a readable structure. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description excels as a deprecation notice but falls short as an operational spec. It lacks any parameter semantics for a 5-parameter tool, so an agent needing to invoke the shim directly would be under-informed. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but the invocation contract is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional parameter information. The five parameters (file_id, file_path, operation, sheet_name, spreadsheet_id) are unexplained, and the description does not map them to the dispatched tools. This is a critical gap since the agent cannot know valid values for 'operation' or how other parameters combine.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to four named single-verb tools (list/get/upload/delete). This distinguishes it from its siblings and tells exactly what it does, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_wdata_list_files / workiva_wdata_get_file / workiva_wdata_upload_file / workiva_wdata_delete_file.' This gives direct when-to-use (avoid) and names the alternatives, fulfilling the usage guideline criterion completely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecation status and that it forwards to another tool, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention any side effects, errors, or specific behaviors beyond dispatching, leaving some uncertainty for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with 'DEPRECATED' and the replacement tool name front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent scanning the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deprecated shim, the description gives the essential context: don't use this, use workiva_run_chain. An output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that parameters match the target tool, but it is otherwise adequate for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists three parameters but the description provides 0% coverage of them. It merely says it 'dispatches' to another tool, which implies the parameters are identical to workiva_run_chain, but this is not explicitly stated. The agent must infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to workiva_run_chain. It explicitly names the replacement tool, distinguishing it from siblings and clarifying its limited role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs the agent to use workiva_run_chain instead, and explains this tool is kept only for backward compatibility. This is unambiguous when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and lists parameters, without explaining side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The index semantics ('-1 = append') add some behavior, but the mutation implications are not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a compact Args list. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter create operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral detail, but the output schema fills in return-value expectations, making the description sufficiently complete for a basic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args block. It clarifies that document_id is a UUID, name is optional, and index uses -1 to append. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new section within a document.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('section'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that list, get, delete, copy, or bulk-edit sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool—when adding a section to a document—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The purpose is unambiguous enough, though no 'when not to use' guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains parameter-specific behavior (e.g., name is optional and Workiva assigns one, index -1 appends), which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like sheet reordering when an index is specified, or any permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the necessary parameters and the core action, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks guidance on error cases or prerequisites, but for a straightforward create operation, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and default behavior: spreadsheet_id is the UUID, name is optional with auto-assignment, and index uses -1 to append. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new sheet in a spreadsheet.' It is distinct from sibling tools like workiva_list_sheets, workiva_get_sheet, and workiva_copy_sheet, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to create a sheet in a spreadsheet) but offers no explicit guidance on alternatives, such as when to use workiva_copy_sheet instead of creating from scratch. Context is clear but exclusions are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the three main operations (create, insert, publish) which implies mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, revision mismatch handling, or authentication needs. It provides some context (e.g., publish is optional) but lacks deeper behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a concise one-sentence summary, followed by a well-structured argument list. Each parameter's explanation is necessary for a 13-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the overall flow and all parameters, which is essential given the tool's complexity and absence of schema descriptions. It does not explain error/edge-case behaviors or revision validation, but the output schema presumably covers return values. Overall it provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter clearly. It adds crucial semantics such as '0-based' indexing for rows/columns, conditional applicability based on target_type (paragraph_index/offset vs target_row/target_column), and that spreadsheet_id is only for the publish step. This far exceeds the schema's bare property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose as 'End-to-end linking' and breaks it into three clear steps: create anchor, insert destination, optionally publish. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workiva_create_anchor and workiva_create_destination_link which perform only individual steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for completing the full linking process in one call but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the individual sibling tools or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to alternatives like calling create_anchor, create_destination_link, and publish_links separately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is a deprecated shim that dispatches to other tools, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not detail operation-specific side effects, but for a deprecated tool the most important fact is clearly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with DEPRECATED, and wastes no words. It immediately directs the agent to the correct tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is deprecated, the description plus schema is sufficient to guide the agent away from it and toward the named alternatives. However, if an agent were forced to call this shim, the description would not explain operation behavior or parameter semantics, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the seven parameters (operation, table_id, schema, patches, name, table_type, max_results). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate and did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim and explicitly names the five replacement tools it dispatches to. This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from the single-verb sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance by saying DEPRECATED and listing the exact alternatives (list/get/create/delete/update table). This is model usage guidance for selecting the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool is deprecated and acts as a shim that dispatches to other tools. This is a transparent behavioral description, though it does not detail side effects or parameter handling, which would be inherited from the underlying tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with the deprecation warning front-loaded in the first line and the backward-compatibility purpose stated in the second. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is deprecated and a shim, the description's main job is to redirect users to the correct alternatives, which it does perfectly. However, for an agent that still needs to invoke this shim for backward compatibility, the missing parameter semantics and lack of detail about dispatch behavior make it incomplete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but parameter guidance is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (group_id, operation, workspace_id). Even the fact that 'operation' likely selects which sub-tool to dispatch to is never mentioned. The agent is left with zero guidance on valid values or how parameters map to behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to single-verb alternatives. It uses a specific verb ('dispatches') and resource (workspace operations), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact tools to use instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to use workiva_list_workspaces, workiva_get_workspace, workiva_list_workspace_groups, and workiva_list_workspace_memberships instead, and notes that this tool is only kept for backward compatibility. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond the basic action by disclosing that the v2026 API rejects `name` and requires `title`, that assignees must be objects `{id, type:'USER'}`, and that the tool maps flat args accordingly, including a readback-verified probe. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the API constraint disclosure is highly valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a parameter block, and a concise API note. The note is slightly redundant with the Args entry for `name` but adds version and verification context, so no content feels wasted. It is appropriately sized for a six-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential creation semantics, parameter transformations, and API constraints. It does not explain workflow interplay (e.g., how creation relates to submit/approve), but for a create operation with complete parameter docs and an output schema, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description's Args list gives meaningful semantics for all six parameters: name (mapped to title), assignee (wrapped as object), approver (wrapped as participant), due_date (ISO string), file (ID), and description. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions and adds operational detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new task', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It differentiates from sibling task tools (get_task, update_task, submit_task, etc.) by focusing on creation, and the Args/Note sections reinforce that this creates a task with the specified properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates usage by saying 'Create a new task' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task, submit_task, approve_task, or delete_task. There are no 'use when' or 'use instead' statements, relying on the agent to infer from the name and the presence of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is a deprecated shim that dispatches to other tools, which is the critical behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, return values, or error handling, though the simplicity and deprecation status make this less critical. The description offers valuable context beyond what any structured field provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, leading with the DEPRECATED warning and immediately naming the replacements. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, a deprecation shim, the description covers the essential context: its deprecated status, the exact alternative tools, and its forwarding behavior. The output schema exists for return values, so that is handled. The description is complete enough for an agent to avoid or safely use it, though it could add a note that the action parameter maps directly to the target tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 names the four target tools, implying that the 'action' parameter maps to submit, approve, reject, or reassign, and that 'task_id' is the task identifier. However, it does not explicitly list valid action values or explain the parameter roles, leaving some inference required. This is adequate but not fully explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states this is a deprecated backward-compatibility shim that dispatches to the single-verb tools workiva_submit_task, workiva_approve_task, workiva_reject_task, and workiva_reassign_task. This clearly distinguishes it from those siblings and makes the purpose obvious, though it lacks a direct verb+resource articulation beyond 'dispatches'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance: 'DEPRECATED — use workiva_submit_task / workiva_approve_task / workiva_reject_task / workiva_reassign_task.' It tells the agent to avoid this tool and use the individual verbs instead, and notes it is kept only for backward compatibility. This is clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the Args explain filter and max_results, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid filters).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single, front-loaded sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by two brief parameter explanations. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the tool's purpose and both parameters adequately. The output schema removes the need to describe return values in detail, making the description complete for its complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides meaningful semantics: filter is described as an OData filter with an example, and max_results is explained as the maximum results to return. This goes beyond the bare schema by clarifying the expected format and purpose of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List spreadsheets in the workspace' clearly specifies the action (list), the resource (spreadsheets), and the scope (workspace). This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_list_sheets (sheets within a spreadsheet) and workiva_list_documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in the workspace' provides clear context that this tool operates at the workspace level, implying when it should be used over similar list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses crucial non-obvious behavior: merge/unmerge operations are asynchronous, return 202 with operationLocation, and require polling until status equals 'completed'. It also explains end-exclusive range semantics and singular range auto-wrapping, which are not visible in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a well-structured Args section, concrete examples, and a highlighted note about async behavior. Although lengthy, every segment adds necessary information for a multi-operation tool with free-form params; there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, 0% schema coverage, and absent annotations, the description covers the core semantics thoroughly: operations, params examples, range formatting, and async confirmation. It does not spell out exact parameter keys for every operation (e.g., autofit or delete), but the provided patterns and output schema make it sufficiently complete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains table_id, operation, and params, and provides concrete JSON examples for representative operations, clarifies the revision field, and specifies the exact format for ranges. This fully compensates for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Edit table structure') followed by an explicit list of supported operations (resize, autofit, hide/unhide, merge, insert/delete rows/columns). This clearly delineates it from sibling tools like write_cells or format_cells, making the tool's scope unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context by enumerating the structural operations the tool performs, and the operation enum reinforces when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use vs. cell-content tools is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return format (TSV), default behaviors for rows/columns, and the meaning of -1 for end_row. However, it doesn't define MAX_CELL_ROWS or describe error handling, which is a gap but not critical for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by a parameter list. It avoids redundancy, every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core behavior and parameter semantics, but omits details about MAX_CELL_ROWS and potential errors, which slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning and default behavior (e.g., end_row -1 means up to MAX_CELL_ROWS, start_col default 0), which goes well beyond the schema's basic type/default definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read cell values from a spreadsheet table' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'cell values' and 'TSV format', making it distinct from row/column retrieval tools like workiva_get_table_rows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that this tool reads cell values from a spreadsheet table and references how to obtain the table_id (from workiva_spreadsheet_sheets). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for cell-level reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-back verification, the limitation that formulas may return calculated results rather than raw text, and the deprecated retry_misses flag with retries intentionally disabled. It stops short of covering permissions or rate limits, but the key behavioral quirks are honestly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a short caveat paragraph, and a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes functional information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main action, the verification process, the formula edge case, and all parameter semantics. With an output schema available, return details need not be spelled out. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit comparison to workiva_write_cells, but the tool's purpose and usage are otherwise well conveyed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: spreadsheet_id and sheet_id are identified as UUIDs, cells are described as [{row, col, value}] with 0-based indices, and retry_misses is explained as a deprecated compatibility flag. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and goes beyond a minimum baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific function: 'Write values/formulas, read back each row range, and report mismatches.' This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_write_cells by emphasizing the verification and read-back behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains the context for formula cells and when unverified reporting is needed, advising callers when rawValue inspection is still required. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with workiva_write_cells or provide a clear 'use this when...' statement, though the 'verified' wording conveys the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the PUT-per-row mechanism, that formulas pass through as text, and that empty strings fill column gaps. It does not state whether writes overwrite existing values or mention auth/rate limits, but it reveals non-obvious implementation behavior that is valuable to an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly structured: a one-line purpose, a brief API reference, a concise behavioral note about row grouping and formula handling, and an Args list. Every sentence adds information, and it is front-loaded with the verb+resource. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (write operation with three params), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it behaves (grouped rows, empty strings), the origin of sheet_id, and parameter formats. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It is fully self-sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema offers zero descriptions, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It does so thoroughly: spreadsheet_id is 'The spreadsheet UUID', sheet_id is 'The sheet UUID (from workiva_spreadsheet_sheets)', and cells is described as '[{row, col, value}] with 0-based row/col'. This adds precise structural details that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific action: 'Write values to cells via the v2026 values API.' This clearly identifies the resource (cells in a spreadsheet) and the operation (write). It distills it from siblings like workiva_read_cells and workiva_format_cells by focusing on the write operation, and the provided API endpoint further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when writing cell values, with details about how rows and gaps are handled. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give 'when not to use' guidance, but the purpose is so direct that the usage context is unmistakable. Missing explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the proven range-link flow with exact endpoint and body shape, flags row/column as deprecated, and reveals the dead legacy endpoint. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations beyond a simple mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy but highly organized: a one-sentence purpose, an Args breakdown, and a targeted NOTE for the table branch. Every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex tool with 10 parameters, so there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, branch-specific flows, deprecated behaviors, and the exact API call, leaving the agent with all needed context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section explains every parameter in detail, including branch-specific requirements (source_range_link/source_table for table) and deprecations (row/column). Since schema coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by adding meaning to all 10 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Insert a destination link in a document or table cell,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes between richText and table targets, and references related tools like create_anchor, making the tool's function unambiguous even among many siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly describes the table branch workflow (createSource → createDestination) and warns that the legacy insertCellDestinationLink path is dead, providing a clear exclusion. It also states prerequisites such as needing a source range-link ID and source table ID, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and delivers exceptionally: it discloses the 202 false-acceptance pitfall, names exactly which operations persist, recommends readback verification, and documents error cases (400 for DV/CF). It also clarifies the table_id token format vs UUID, preventing common misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose. It opens with the endpoint and key caveat, then systematically details persistence status, parameter formats, and JSON examples. Warnings and clarifications are clearly labeled (⚠️), and the structure helps the agent quickly extract critical behavioral facts without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the endpoint and the lack of annotations, the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, persistence expectations, alternatives for unsupported formatting, error behavior, and verification advice. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values, so completeness is high.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does so thoroughly: table_id is described as an opaque content-table token (not a 32-hex UUID), and operations includes concrete JSON examples for setCellsProperties and setCellsBorders, plus a note about formatCells. This exceeds what the bare schema (just names) provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool formats cells via a specific endpoint, and contextually distinguishes itself from siblings like workiva_write_cells (cell values) and workiva_read_cells (cell reading). It also specifies the scope (cell properties, borders, formats) and notes when to use a different path for font/bold/size, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including which operations actually persist (setCellsProperties, setCellsBorders) and which don't (formatCells on v2026), with a clear recommendation to use api_request for font/bold/size. It also lists unsupported operations (valueFormat, dataValidation, conditionalFormat) and their error behavior, effectively telling the agent when to avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![regulated-reporting-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![regulated-reporting-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dbett4/regulated-reporting-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server