validate_workflow_input_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates workflow input JSON, implying a read-only check, but doesn't describe what validation entails (e.g., syntax checks, schema compliance, error reporting), whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (validating JSON with dependencies on WDL and input files), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool's purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or parameter roles. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description, but overall, the description is adequate with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself includes descriptions for parameters like 'wdl_path' and 'input_json'. The description doesn't explain these parameters or their roles in validation. With one parameter object and schema doing the work, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't hinder understanding either.

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 '验证工作流输入 JSON 文件' (Validate workflow input JSON file) states the tool's purpose as validating workflow input JSON, which is clear but vague. It specifies the action (validate) and resource (workflow input JSON file), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'validate_wdl' or explain what validation entails. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a WDL file or input JSON), exclusions, or related tools like 'validate_wdl' or 'compose_input_json'. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection among siblings.

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