Tools vs workflows guidance

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context by stating it is equivalent to the guidance://tools-vs-workflows resource and explaining why it exists as a tool, though it does not detail output format or other operational traits.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose first, then usage guidance, then resource equivalence. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and resource equivalence adequately. The only notable gap is not explicitly distinguishing this guidance tool from the other guidance siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space explaining parameters that do not exist.

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's purpose: guidance on choosing between standalone generate_* tools and workflow tools. It distinguishes the two categories well, but does not differentiate itself from sibling guidance tools like get_workflows_guidance or get_getting_started_guidance.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call when choosing between generate_* tools and workflow tools,' providing clear usage context. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent away from other guidance tools.

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