learn_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., file creation, storage location), permissions needed, or whether it modifies state. Only states the abstract purpose.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loads key purpose. However, it is in Chinese, which may be less accessible for some AI agents, and could be slightly more structured.

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 is adequate but incomplete: fails to explain where the YAML template is saved, output details, or precedence rules among parameters (though schema covers these). With 6 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., precedence of steps/description/from_session is in schema but not in description).

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 learns workflows from verbal descriptions or historical sessions and generates reusable YAML templates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_workflow, but explicit differentiation is missing.

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 when to use (learning workflows), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references. Given many sibling tools, exclusion guidance would be helpful.

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