get_workflows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Pure guidance: reads nothing, changes nothing', fully disclosing that the tool is side-effect-free and only returns guidance. This exceeds the transparency expected for an unannotated tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, invocation modes, valid task list, and safety profile are all packed into a compact, front-loaded description. There is no filler or repetition.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary execution details: the two calling conventions, the complete set of valid task names, and the lack of side effects. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter's role and enumerating all valid task values ('process-feedback', 'prepare-submission', etc.). An agent knows exactly what to pass and what each mode returns.

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 'Recommended tool sequences for common multi-step tasks' with a one-line why per step. This positioning distinguishes it from the document-manipulation siblings, making it clear that it is a guidance tool, not an operation.

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 invocation modes: call with no task to list available tasks, or with task='<name>' for a specific sequence. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use for planning multi-step tasks is strongly implied by its purpose.

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