workflowy

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, which already inform the agent about mutation, non-idempotency, and open-world behavior. The description adds no context on what gets destroyed, rate limits, or auth needs, but it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 front-loads the purpose ('List available Workflowy targets') and specifies the resource types in parentheses. There is no wasted language, making it appropriately sized and structured for quick understanding.

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's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context or behavioral nuances. With annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in guidance, making it just sufficient for basic understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters. It efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 ('List') and resource ('available Workflowy targets'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes the resource type (targets) from siblings like 'workflowy_get' or 'workflowy_list', but does not explicitly differentiate the purpose from similar tools like 'workflowy_report_children' or 'workflowy_search', which might also list items. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer this over 'workflowy_list' or other reporting tools. Without such information, the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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