read_workflow_prompt_stacks

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares 'Read-only' and describes the output structure, but does not disclose potential limitations, authentication needs, or performance implications. The description adds moderate value beyond the read-only hint.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and output, then provides usage context. Every sentence 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return format (flowStepId, name, prompt snippets with link ids and order) and why to use the tool. It covers the necessary information for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter workflowId, with a clear schema description. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond schema, but it contextualizes the parameter by explaining the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it resolves a workflow to its flow steps and each step's prompt stack, listing the output fields (flowStepId, name, prompt snippets). It distinguishes from siblings like read_workflow and read_flow by focusing on prompt stacks, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use it: to discover flowStepIds before placing prompts and to see a workflow's prompt composition. It mentions 'read-only' indicating safe use, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.

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