get_workflow_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the template includes a 'recommended swarm' and a 'task list shaped for submit_plan' with 'depends_on indexes already wired.' This informs the agent of the output's structure and readiness for submission. While it does not cover authentication or error handling, the behavior (a read operation returning a structured template) is adequately disclosed.

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 two sentences plus a short list. It immediately states the purpose and then gives actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded. No extraneous words.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, available inputs, and how to use the output. It could explicitly mention that the output is a template object, but this is implied by 'recommended swarm + a task list.' The sibling tool list_workflow_templates provides a complementary listing capability, reducing the need for more detail.

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 only parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description lists three valid values: 'ship-feature', 'refactor-module', 'debug-issue', which effectively provides an enum-like constraint. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, enabling correct invocation.

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's purpose: 'Get a workflow template: recommended swarm + a task list shaped for submit_plan.' It lists specific available templates (ship-feature, refactor-module, debug-issue), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workflow_templates which lists all templates rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Available: ship-feature, refactor-module, debug-issue. Adapt the task titles/descriptions to your concrete goal, then pass the tasks straight to submit_plan — depends_on indexes are already wired.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (for preparing submit_plan) and what to do with the result. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like list_workflow_templates, but the guidance is clear.

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