Browse the wflow API catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Return the catalog' and adds context about the filter behavior and return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or mention any potential pagination/limits. The clear read verb and logical discovery purpose are sufficient to deserve a 4.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and output fields; the second provides usage guidance, alternative tool, and filter examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to filter, and the next step (wflow_request). It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes the filter parameter fully ('Case-insensitive substring matched against path, summary and tag'), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that the filter is optional, providing concrete examples, and explaining how filtering integrates with the catalog discovery workflow.

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 function: 'Return the catalog of wflow public API operations (method, path, summary, tag).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a discovery tool for endpoints not covered by typed tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover endpoints that no typed tool covers, then call them with `wflow_request`.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and points to the alternative for invoking the discovered endpoints. Filter examples (e.g., 'payment', 'approval') further clarify usage.

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