Workflow Report Summary

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, so the description should disclose side effects. It mentions 'Render' and reuse of the session's stored workflow, but does not clarify whether the summary is written back to session state, whether recommendations have side effects, or what exactly happens when the artifact is omitted.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys both the core purpose and the key parameter behavior without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says a Markdown report is rendered. It does not describe the return format, what a 'recommendation summary' contains, or how the report is delivered, so an agent has enough for basic invocation but not for fully anticipating the tool's behavior.

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 description adds valuable meaning to the 'artifact' parameter by noting it can be omitted and will reuse the stored workflow. The schema already documents session_id, but the artifact's internal structure and expected contents are left unspecified, and schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action ('Render') and a clear resource ('Markdown workflow report and recommendation summary'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like lens.analyze_workflow, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives it differs from.

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 only usage guidance is that 'artifact' may be omitted to reuse the session's stored workflow. This helps with parameter choice but does not explain when to choose this tool over related reporting tools such as lens.audit_report or lens.slo_summary, leaving selection mostly to inference.

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