get_workflow_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or dependencies. For a guidance tool, it lacks information about internal operations or data usage.

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 a single concise sentence of 18 words, front-loading the core purpose. While efficient, it omits important details that could be included without making it verbose.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context on how inputs affect output and what the guidance looks like. It does not explain the interaction of availableAssets and primaryConcerns or the meaning of different timeframe values.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions including enums and examples. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond summarizing the goal and projectContext parameters, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool provides intelligent workflow guidance and tool recommendations based on goals and project context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_development_guidance by being more general, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies usage when seeking guidance and recommendations, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_architectural_context or get_development_guidance. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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