workato_recipe_tips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only, informational nature via 'Read before building/editing' and contrasts with log_learning, but it does not explicitly state side effects (or lack thereof), return format, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most important value proposition ('Hard-won gotchas'), then immediate usage instructions, and a pointer to log_learning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless informational tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the topic (Workato recipe authoring via Developer API), when to use it (before building/editing), and the related logging workflow. It does not enumerate example tips, but this is not necessary given the simple nature of the tool and lack of output schema.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed.

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 collection of 'gotchas' for authoring Workato recipes via the Developer API, which distinguishes it from recipe CRUD and validation siblings. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'provides' or 'returns') that explicitly states the tool's action, making it slightly less definitive than a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Read before building/editing.' It also provides a when-not/alternative by stating 'New discoveries go to log_learning first,' directing the agent away from this tool for new findings and toward log_learning. This fully satisfies the usage guidance dimension.

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