inspect_workflow

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by detailing the output structure (nodes, links, groups, subgraph details), providing transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compact view of a session workflow') and then lists contents efficiently. No redundant information.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers nodes, links, groups, and subgraph details, which is sufficient for an inspection tool. No major gaps.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (workflow_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This is insufficient; the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's purpose and format.

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 provides a 'compact view of a session workflow' and lists specific components: nodes (with id/class/title/widgets), links, groups, and subgraph details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows (listing workflows) and get_node_info (single node info).

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 implies this tool is for inspecting workflow structure compactly, contrasting with other tools for listing or detailed node info. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context from sibling names provides sufficient guidance.

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