ezd_api1_get_workflow_templates

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the safe read-only nature, and the description's 'Pobierz' agrees with that. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation: it does not mention response shape, permissions, pagination, or error behavior, though for a simple retrieval tool this is a moderate gap, not a 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?

The description is a single compact sentence that conveys action, object, API, and system with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a low-complexity read-only tool and front-loads the core operation.

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 read-only listing tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of return format or pagination, plus the confusing near-duplicate sibling ezd_pracownik_get_workflow_templates, the definition leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, including auto-generation of CID and defaulting of worker/position IDs to environment variables. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 ('Pobierz' = get), a clear resource ('szablony obiegu pracownika' = employee workflow templates), and the API context ('przez API1' in EZD PUW), so an agent can identify this as a retrieval operation. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool ezd_pracownik_get_workflow_templates, which appears to target the same resource.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus ezd_pracownik_get_workflow_templates or the related API1 workflow-template creation/update/delete tools. The description only mentions 'API1' as context but does not explain selection criteria or alternatives.

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