get_workflow_guidance_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It explains that it combines project-specific workflows with standard workflows and lists available workflow names, but it does not disclose side effects, return format, or behavior when parameters are omitted. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, leaving gaps in behavioral 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 well-organized with clear section headers ('WHEN TO USE', 'AVAILABLE WORKFLOWS'), is concise, and every sentence provides useful information. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers when to use, what it does, and lists available workflows. However, it does not explain the output structure or what happens when both parameters are null, leaving a small but notable 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?

The schema already includes descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing the exact workflow names ('test-first', 'feature-branch', etc.) and their meanings, which goes beyond the schema's example-driven explanation. This enriches the parameter semantics for workflow_name.

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 states it provides 'phase-by-phase workflow guidance for development tasks', with a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on workflow guidance and listing the available workflow types, making its role unambiguous.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists use cases such as 'start of any new task', 'follow best practices', and 'new agents should always call this'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would take it to a 5.

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