get_workflows

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Pure guidance: reads nothing, changes nothing,' and also discloses that unshipped COM-tier tools are marked as forthcoming rather than falsely presented. This is exemplary transparency.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core purpose before call patterns, caveats, and safety. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 guidance tool with an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to invoke it, what tasks exist, how incomplete tools are handled, and that it has no side effects. Nothing important is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the task parameter, and it does so thoroughly: null means list available tasks, a string names the specific task, and the valid task names are enumerated. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific purpose: returning recommended tool sequences for common multi-step spreadsheet tasks. It lists the exact available tasks and explicitly disclaims any data access, distinguishing it from the many spreadsheet-mutation siblings.

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 call conventions: call with no task to list tasks, call with task='<name>' for the recipe. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like validate or diagnose_workbook, but the context of 'pure guidance' makes the intended use clear.

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