workflowy

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, suggesting this tool may modify data, but the description doesn't clarify what gets destroyed or altered during the search. It adds context about searching by text or regex, but fails to explain the destructive behavior implied by annotations, creating a gap in understanding the tool's impact.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for concise tool descriptions.

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 destructiveHint=true annotation and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of nodes, counts, or details) or the implications of the destructive behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and results.

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 the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions 'text or regular expression,' which aligns with the 'pattern' and 'regexp' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search') and resource ('node names'), specifying the search scope. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'workflowy_get' or 'workflowy_list', which might also retrieve node information, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific search function.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'workflowy_get', 'workflowy_list', and various report tools, there's no indication of whether this is for general searches, filtered results, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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