workflow_get_journey_graph

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is low. The description adds that the graph is deterministic and derived from a manifest, which is useful context about the nature of the result, but says nothing about output shape, size, or failure modes when the manifest is missing/invalid.

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 single tight sentence with the key resource and its contents front-loaded and no filler. Clean, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense and the sentence could carry one more clause of guidance at no real cost.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the graph's components (repositories, screens, http edges), but it omits how journeyId relates to the manifest and gives no sense of the returned structure beyond a noun list.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter journeyId. The description refers to a 'manifest' as the input source, which does not correspond to the declared journeyId parameter, so it adds no clarifying meaning and arguably muddies what the parameter should be.

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 (Build) and resource (journey graph) and enumerates the graph's contents (repositories, screens, http edges) plus its source (a manifest). This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like workflow_get_repository_graph and workflow_analyze_journey, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as workflow_get_repository_graph or workflow_analyze_journey. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the tool list.

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