workflowy_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the search covers the entire outline and returns IDs with parent relationships. However, it does not mention any side effects or authentication needs, but given the read-only nature implied, this is sufficient.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and usage guidance. No superfluous information is present.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It mentions the return type (IDs and parent relationships). Could be slightly improved by noting search behavior (e.g., substring matching), but not essential.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds some context (e.g., 'across your ENTIRE outline') but does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a search function for nodes by text across the entire outline, including deeply nested children. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (nodes), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like list_nodes or get_node.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to find nodes anywhere in your hierarchy'). While it doesn't mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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