workflowy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, suggesting this is a non-idempotent, destructive write operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds behavioral context by specifying the ranking order (oldest first). However, it doesn't explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., does it modify node data or just output a report?), leaving some ambiguity.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Rank nodes'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and ordering criterion.

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 destructive annotations (destructiveHint=true) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool outputs (e.g., a list, a report format) or the implications of being destructive (e.g., whether it alters node data). For a tool with complex behavioral hints and no output schema, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 item_id, preserve_tags, and top_n. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as how item_id affects ranking or what 'preserve_tags' entails. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Rank nodes by creation date (oldest first)' clearly states the action (rank) and resource (nodes) with a specific ordering criterion. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'workflowy_report_modified' (which likely ranks by modification date) or 'workflowy_report_children' (which might report on child nodes), leaving the differentiation unclear.

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 sibling tools like 'workflowy_report_modified' and 'workflowy_report_children', there's no indication of whether this tool is for root-level nodes, specific branches, or how it compares to other reporting tools. The lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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