workflow_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it reveals the cross-tenant node-stripping behavior, the sha256 integrity manifest, and that export events are appended to the lineage pedigree and audit chain. This is rich behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotations; only the return format and side-effect scope beyond audit linking are left unstated.

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?

A dense single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose (workflow template export) before enumerating contents and behaviors. Every clause carries meaning in compact technical style; it is appropriately concise given the domain complexity, though it could be broken into scannable segments.

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 4-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers exported content and stripping behavior but omits the return format (inline data vs. downloadable artifact vs. URL) and any prerequisites. Gaps on the response side keep it from being fully complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description enriches the enterprise parameter by framing it as lineage metadata (source enterprise/source version/fork hierarchy/ancestor chain) and reinforces the cross_tenant default stripping, but most parameter meaning is carried by the schema itself, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (导出/export) and a specific resource (workflow template G1 five-piece set), then enumerates the exact output contents: workflow.yml, ontology data, MD family, sha256 manifest, and lineage metadata. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling workflow_import by its export orientation, even without naming it.

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 explains cross-tenant behavior — default stripping of private/result-only nodes and the G6 linkage — which tells the agent when stripped vs. full export occurs. However, it does not name alternatives, state when not to use the tool, or explicitly route to workflow_import; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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