Get Workflow Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly frames the tool as an informational guide with no side effects, and the content list ('What schema tools to call', 'Example workflows') discloses its function. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe output format, but for a guide tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear 'START HERE' header and bulleted content list. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. The final sentence ('Call this tool first...') slightly repeats the opening instruction, adding a small redundancy, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 it has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, content, and usage timing. The tool is self-contained as a guide, and the description fully equips an agent to understand when and why to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers input requirements. The description does not need to add parameter details; it focuses on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 this as a workflow guide for using the LACRM MCP, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow guide'. It lists the exact content covered (schema tools to call, required fields, example workflows, interpreting schema responses), which fully distinguishes it from the many CRUD sibling tools.

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?

Provides an explicit usage instruction: 'Call this tool first when connecting to understand how to use the MCP correctly.' It also states what the tool explains (schema tools before create/edit, required fields, example workflows), giving clear context on when to use it relative to other tools.

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