Describe MCP Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's promise to 'Return' is consistent with the safety profile. However, the description adds no further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether results vary or if any rate limits exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, efficient sentence lists all the key output elements (workflow guide, fill shapes, result paths, intent aliases, recovery rules) with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and annotations cover safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns. The output schema exists but is not detailed in the prompt; however, the description explicitly names the result categories, so an agent can infer the structure. It lacks explicit when-to-use wording, but for a meta-descriptor, this is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description doesn't mention parameters, but with zero parameters, there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and clearly enumerates the resource content: workflow guide, fill shapes, result paths, intent aliases, and recovery rules. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on specific actions or entities (e.g., battles, characters, catalog) rather than a meta-guide.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned. The purpose is self-evident (get an overview of this MCP), but the description does not state conditions like 'use when you need to understand the overall workflow' or 'not for specific entity details.'

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