workflowy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a non-read-only, potentially destructive operation, but the description doesn't explain what gets destroyed or any behavioral traits like side effects or permissions. It adds minimal context beyond annotations, such as the optional descendants feature, but lacks details on risks or constraints.

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 very concise with a single sentence that front-loads the main action. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, destructive hint, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, what 'node' entails, or how the destructive behavior manifests, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters like 'depth', 'include_empty_names', and 'item_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the action ('Get a node') and mentions optional descendants, which clarifies scope. However, it doesn't specify what 'node' refers to in the Workflowy context or differentiate from siblings like 'workflowy_list' or 'workflowy_search', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'workflowy_list' or 'workflowy_search'. The description implies retrieval but offers no context on use cases or exclusions, making it unclear how to choose among siblings.

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