GetWorkflowDefinition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are omitted (since all are optional). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it could be more informative given the lack of other guidance.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'workflow details' include, how results are structured, or provide any context about the DataWorks platform. For a retrieval tool with optional parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '获取数据开发工作流详情' (Get data development workflow details) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('workflow details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetWorkflow' or 'GetWorkflowInstance', which appear to retrieve different workflow-related information, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'GetWorkflow', 'GetWorkflowInstance', 'ListWorkflowDefinitions', and 'GetWorkflowDefinition' all available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this specific retrieval operation from the others, leaving the agent without usage context.

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