Fetch required fields, optional fields, enums, and an example payload for a workflow via GET /v1/workflows/{workflow}/schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow | Yes | Workflow identifier such as healthcare.denial, healthcare.prior_auth, or healthcare.reimbursement. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by enumerating exactly what the response contains (required fields, optional fields, enums, example payload). It also mentions the GET method, reinforcing the safe read-only nature.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any filler. 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 tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its scope. No output schema exists, but the description adequately compensates by listing response contents.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description and examples. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 fetches required fields, optional fields, enums, and an example payload for a workflow. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows or validate_workflow_payload.
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 provides clear context by specifying the HTTP method and resource path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: account limits, usage, workflow schema, workflow list, single scoring, batch scoring, feedback, and payload validation. The only potential overlap (score_workflow vs score_batch) is clearly delineated by batch versus single operation.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separation (get_*, list_*, score_*, submit_*, validate_*). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a scoring API, covering account management, workflow discovery, scoring, validation, and feedback without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for the domain: discovering workflows, fetching schemas, validating payloads, scoring (single or batch), checking account limits/usage, and submitting feedback. No obvious gaps exist.