workflowy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by implying this generates a report (likely a read-like operation despite destructive hint), but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it lacks details on what 'destructive' means here (e.g., if it modifies data or just consumes resources) or any rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 phrase ('Generate descendant count report') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the action and output, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations covering key behavioral hints, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on report format, usage scenarios, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with destructive hint and no output schema, more detail on output or risks would improve completeness, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 descriptions for each parameter (item_id, preserve_tags, threshold). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., threshold's effect on the report). Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Generate descendant count report' specifies a verb ('Generate') and resource type ('descendant count report'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'workflowy_report_children', 'workflowy_report_created', or 'workflowy_report_modified', all of which also generate reports. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this report unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'workflowy_report_children' (likely for child-level reports) and 'workflowy_report_created/modified' (likely for time-based reports), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone, which is insufficient.

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