vectis_get_workflow

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the workflow is specifically for sponsorship research, and clarifies that the tool does not perform reasoning/drafting – it simply provides the workflow. This complements the annotations and gives the agent a better understanding of the tool's role without contradicting them.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Read the sponsorship research workflow') and immediately adds the usage context ('before starting'). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is extremely efficient.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior. The description explains the purpose, the timing, and what the agent should not expect (reasoning/drafting). It does not describe the exact content or structure of the workflow, but for a fixed read resource with the given annotations, this is adequate. Completeness is high given the simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given the empty schema. The description does not need to compensate for any missing param docs.

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 a specific action ('Read the sponsorship research workflow') with a distinct resource ('sponsorship research workflow'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The purpose is clear and distinct from the mission-related siblings.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'before starting' – indicating this tool is a prerequisite step. It also clarifies that reasoning and drafting are not handled by this tool, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the timing guidance is strong.

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