workflowy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a mutation operation, but the description does not explain what gets destroyed or modified. It adds minimal context about ranking behavior but lacks details on output format, pagination, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description does little to compensate for the heavy annotation burden.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 no output schema and annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of nodes with dates), potential side effects, or how ranking interacts with parameters like 'top_n'. For a destructive tool with complex parameters, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how 'item_id' affects ranking scope or what 'preserve_tags' entails. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full parameter documentation load.

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 action ('Rank nodes') and the sorting criterion ('by modification date (oldest first)'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'workflowy_report_created' or 'workflowy_report_children'. However, it does not specify the resource scope (e.g., all nodes globally or within a subtree), leaving some ambiguity compared to fully explicit descriptions.

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 such as 'workflowy_report_created' (which might rank by creation date) or 'workflowy_search' (which might filter by content). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, relying solely on the tool name for differentiation.

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