load_workflow

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden: it discloses the filesystem resolution model and that the result is workflow JSON, which is the important part for a read operation. It does not say what happens when the name/path does not exist (error vs. empty) or how relative vs. absolute paths are handled, which an agent dispatching on a string needs to know.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resolution behavior front-loaded followed by the return value and downstream use. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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?

With one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a bad name or path.

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% and the single parameter is already documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds genuine value on top by explaining the name-to-file mapping (workflows/<name>.json, without extension) and that a full path is also accepted, clarifying the polymorphic parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Load a saved workflow") and even the resolution rules (name resolved to workflows/<name>.json, or a full path). It names the two downstream consumers (execute_workflow, save_workflow), which separates it from siblings like list_saved_workflows and get_workflow_json.

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?

"Returns workflow JSON for use with execute_workflow or save_workflow" gives a clear picture of where this tool sits in a pipeline. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g. use list_saved_workflows to enumerate available names first), so it falls short of a 5.

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