lingie_workflow_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '查看' indicates a read-only lookup, and the phrase 'before submitting lingie_run_workflow' clarifies it does not execute the workflow. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention permissions, but the wording is sufficient for a safe introspection tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output contents; the second sentence gives the critical usage trigger. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what information is returned, references the prerequisite relationship with lingie_run_workflow, and the schema supplies the input source. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already describes workflow_id as coming from lingie_list_workflows, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic nuance about the input parameter; its mentions of names, types, etc. refer to the output content, not the input.

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 uses a specific verb ('查看' / view) and a specific resource ('指定工作流的参数模式' / specified workflow's parameter schema), and enumerates exactly what information is returned (name, type, required, default, enum values, submission method). It also positions itself as a prerequisite to lingie_run_workflow, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling execution and status tools.

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 explicitly states when to call it: '提交 lingie_run_workflow 前务必先调用本工具' (must call this tool before submitting lingie_run_workflow) to understand how to fill params. This gives clear, actionable usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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