vro_workflow_get_aggregated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the aggregation/grouping semantics and that each entry carries data for all configurations containing the workflow, which matters for interpretation. It says nothing about pagination behavior even though a page parameter is required, so the return-size behavior is opaque.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are largely duplicative ('Get aggregated list of workflows...' repeated twice), and the raw HTTP path adds little for an agent. The useful content (grouping by id/name, per-configuration info) is buried in the second sentence.

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 read-only list tool with four sibling workflow query tools and no output schema, the description does enough to convey what comes back at a high level. Missing pagination semantics and the absence of any routing guidance against siblings leave real gaps for an agent choosing among get_all, get_aggregated, and get_aggregated_one.

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 parameter is a nested object with page/size/sort sub-fields, yet the description says nothing about them. An agent gets no information on page indexing base, default or maximum size, or accepted sort keys. The property names are self-describing, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (get aggregated list of workflows) and adds the key differentiator that results span all configurations, grouped by id and name. That is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never names the nearest sibling (vro_workflow_get_all) that presumably covers a single configuration, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 explicit statement of when to choose this over vro_workflow_get_all, vro_workflow_get_one, or vro_workflow_get_aggregated_one. The phrase 'for all configurations' hints at the selection criterion but never states it as guidance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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