Get Workflow Guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 24,000-byte structured-payload limit, a refusal rather than truncation, no backend request, and the caveat that guidance does not authorise writes or replace validation. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot get from 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.

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

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavioral constraints. Most sentences earn their place, though the topic enumeration and the final optional-lookup sentence could be tightened slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the payload limit and refusal semantics. Combined with the usage pattern, topic list, and identifier caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it enumerates the valid topics (mmm, results, priors, optimiser, studies, var), explains that the default section is 'entrypoint' and what it contains, and warns that arguments are identifiers, never paths. It stops short of documenting section ID syntax, but that is delegated to the index lookup.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read versioned Simba workflow guidance') plus the exact condition under which it applies ('when native Skills are unavailable'). An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like get_recipe_revision_authoring or get_backend_capabilities without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step usage pattern ('Use index to list allowed topic/section IDs, then request the relevant section') and an explicit when-not ('Lookup is optional when the caller already has the relevant versioned guidance'). The alternative to this tool (native Skills) is named directly.

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