workflow.guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the tool does not execute the recommended skill—only reads state and recommends. It also hints at persistence ('durable'). While it doesn't cover error cases or the exact output format, it supplements the annotation meaningfully without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The core action is front-loaded ('Read durable guided-development state and recommend the next workflow skill'), followed immediately by concrete usage triggers and a follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the follow-up action. It does not specify the exact return format or behavior when no state exists, but the instruction to 'read the recommended skill' implies the output is a skill reference. Minor edge cases are omitted, but overall it is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention repo_path at all. The single parameter's purpose must be inferred from the tool name and context; it is never explicitly defined. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated by explaining that repo_path identifies the repository for which guidance is sought, but it fails to do so.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('durable guided-development state'), and explicitly notes it recommends a skill without executing it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like workflow.advance (which likely executes) and skill.list/read (which handle skill retrieval directly), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('whenever the user says continue, asks what to do next, or says they do not know the next development step') and instructs the agent to then read and follow the recommended skill. It implicitly differentiates from starting a new workflow or advancing an existing one, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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