lint_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so description only adds that it returns a list of issues and 'Empty list = clean.' This is helpful but minimal beyond the annotations.

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?

Description is extremely concise: a single sentence with a specific list of lint checks and a note about empty results. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Description covers the main lint checks verbally and notes the return meaning. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are partly covered. However, it does not mention if there are other checks beyond the listed ones or how verbose the output is. Still adequate for a lint tool.

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 has one required parameter (workflow_id) with no description (coverage 0%). The description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent to guess what workflow_id refers to or how to obtain it. This is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a 'lint' for readability and wiring issues, listing specific problems it checks (unlabeled prompts, missing groups/notes, orphan nodes, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_workflow or diagnose_workflow, which likely handle different concerns.

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?

Description implies the tool is for static analysis of workflow readability and wiring, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings like validate_workflow or run_workflow. Agent must infer from context.

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