tracecat_run_workflow_draft

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

The description discloses that it uses an uncommitted version and is for testing, suggesting non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or whether it modifies any state beyond execution. The information is minimal but not misleading.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is both concise and informative.

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 description covers the mode and intended use, but lacks information about the output or return value, especially given that there is no output schema. A complete description for a test execution tool might mention what the response contains (e.g., execution ID, status). While not severely lacking, it could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (workflow_id and payload). The tool's description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is contributed.

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 'Execute a workflow in DRAFT mode' and specifies it uses an uncommitted version, distinguishing it from the production counterpart (tracecat_run_workflow). The verb 'execute' combined with resource 'workflow draft' is specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'useful for testing before deploy' implicitly indicates when to use this tool, implying it is for testing rather than production. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool should not be used in a production context or directly mention the sibling `tracecat_run_workflow` as the alternative. The context is clear but could be more directive.

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