workflowy_list

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

The description states 'list', implying a read-only operation, but annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating potential side effects. This contradiction undermines transparency. Additionally, no behavioral details beyond the brief description are provided, despite the tool having significant behavior (e.g., recursion, flat output format).

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 extremely brief (5 words), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details or organize information; it merely states the core purpose. While not verbose, it under-delivers for a tool with multiple parameters and a contradictory annotation.

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 has 4 parameters, destructiveHint=true, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (flat list), the effect of the 'method' parameter, or the implications of destructiveHint=true. The absence of output schema is not compensated by description.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds only the concept of 'flat list' but no further parameter-specific semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not diminish or enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'List descendants as flat list' clearly states the action (list) and resource (descendants), and implies a flat output format, distinguishing it from siblings like workflowy_report_children which lists only direct children. However, it does not mention that it operates from a specific ID (default root), which is a minor gap.

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_report_children or workflowy_get. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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