get_agent_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and 'standard recipes' suggests static content, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no required permissions, or whether results are generated on demand. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and the resource ('standard Agent workflow recipes') before adding the contextual modifier. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It identifies the domain and purpose without needing to explain return values. The only slight gap is that terms like 'workflow recipes' and 'no-board Project Mode PL' are domain jargon, but the output schema and sibling context likely resolve this.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already documents this fully. The description adds context about the domain of the returned recipes ('no-board Project Mode PL development'), which is meaningful. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is already high.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('standard Agent workflow recipes'), with a clear context modifier ('no-board Project Mode PL development'). It is not a tautology and conveys the primary function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_agent_scenarios or get_tool_catalog, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear usage context ('for no-board Project Mode PL development'), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool should be used instead, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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