workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious value by pre-empting the misleading topic names: 'no design file, project read/write, implementation, verification or cleanup is performed' clarifies that 'build' and 'yolo' do not trigger actions. Only the return format (e.g. markdown/text) is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Read built-in figlens skill guidance'), followed by topic routing, then a scope disclaimer. The topic list is dense but every clause maps to an enum value or a behavioral constraint, so there is little waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers intent, per-value selection, side-effect scope, and result nature ('Returns the requested guide only'). Only the concrete return format is unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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% and the enum already lists the five topics, so baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic meaning to each enum value by describing the situation each guide is intended for, which the schema's one-line 'Guide to read' does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read built-in figlens skill guidance for this agent', then enumerates the five guides available. The purpose is unmistakable despite the generic tool name 'workflow', and it clearly is not a design-file or export operation like its siblings tree/find/inspect/bundle/export.

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?

Gives per-topic routing ('build for design-to-code and project reuse', 'planning-details for page/multi-page work or unresolved design dependencies', 'yolo for explicitly requested autonomous implementation'), and explicitly says ordinary design questions and exports should use the design tools directly. That covers when to use this tool and when not to.

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