workflowy

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, etc.), so the description's burden is lower. It adds context about the output format ('flat list'), but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'destructive' entails (e.g., if it modifies data). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List descendants of a node') and adds specific detail ('as a flat list'). There is no wasted language, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output format, but doesn't address error cases, performance implications, or example usage. With annotations providing safety hints, it meets a baseline level of completeness.

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%, with clear documentation for all parameters (depth, include_empty_names, item_id). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'depth' affects performance or why 'item_id' defaults to 'None' for root. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 states the verb ('List') and resource ('descendants of a node'), specifying the output format ('as a flat list'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflowy_get' (single item) and 'workflowy_report_children' (structured report), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'workflowy_search' (filtered search).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like 'workflowy_report_children' (which might offer structured data) or 'workflowy_search' (for filtered results), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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