Browse the Workday docs table of contents

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context on return structure (path, nodes with doc_id, child_count, children) and explains that non-null doc_ids indicate real pages, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: a brief opening sentence, then bulleted args and return format. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and provides structured details efficiently.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes return values. It covers the core use case and links to a sibling tool (get_workday_doc). It is complete for the tool's exploratory purpose, though it could mention limitations regarding deep nesting.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds usage context: 'Pass a breadcrumb path to expand a node; an empty path lists the top-level sections' and clarifies depth range (1-3). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's simple 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: exploring the documentation hierarchy when keyword search misses. It gives specific examples of top-level sections and explains how to use the returned doc_ids with get_workday_doc, clearly distinguishing its role from search.

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 advises using this tool when keyword search fails and directs using returned doc_ids with get_workday_doc. While it implies when not to use (when search works), it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like lookup_extend_reference.

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