get_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the two modes (index vs. full steps), frames the tool as a recipe/read operation, and notes its role in preventing wrong-tool detours. It does not spell out every edge case, but it gives sufficient behavioral context for a recipe-lookup tool.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the long list of recipe names is genuinely useful for invoking the task parameter. It could be better structured with the parameter instructions separated from the enumeration, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter reference tool with an output schema, the description covers the call modes, valid inputs, and recommended usage timing. An agent has everything needed to select the correct task name and to know what behavior to expect.

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 schema only defines task as an optional string or null, with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The description fully compensates by explaining that null returns the index, a task name returns full steps, and enumerating the valid recipe names an agent can pass.

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 identifies the resource as a set of step-by-step workflow recipes for common jobs, naming the required packs and tool order. It goes beyond a generic label and helps an agent distinguish this meta-level guidance tool from the direct editing tools in its sibling list.

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 gives explicit directions: call with no task for the index and with a task name for full steps. It also advises reading the matching recipe before the first deck edit, which provides clear context, though it does not name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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