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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: what each view returns, that full is large, and the operational warning to copy `find` text character-for-character from the node view rather than from memory.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('One flow') and then the routing guidance. Every clause carries actionable content — no filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does: summary yields fields plus one line per node and links, node yields full settings and prompt, full yields the orchestration body. Workspace handling and error behavior live in the schema, so this is nearly complete, missing only edge-case caveats.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the view modes and the nodeId pairing, which the enum and property descriptions already document; it adds little parameter detail the schema doesn't already carry.

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 opening 'One flow' plus the per-view breakdown makes clear this retrieves a single Workbench flow, and the view semantics (nodes/links, one node's settings, whole orchestration body) pin down what is returned. It reads as retrieval rather than a sibling like workbench_flows_list, but the verb is implied rather than stated, so it stops short of a crisp 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?

It prescribes exactly which view to use and when: default summary to pick a node, `view: node` + nodeId before workbench_flows_edit_text, `view: full` for the whole body. It names the dependent sibling (workbench_flows_edit_text) and the condition that selects this tool over it, leaving nothing to inference.

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