get_mcp_workflow_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return format ('JSON with workflow steps, required MCPs, personas, and estimates') and the behavior of optional parameter substitution. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, but the 'Get a template' phrasing implies a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with distinct sections: a one-sentence summary, an 'Args' section describing each parameter, a 'Returns' section, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by explaining a template name, parameter usage, or output format. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and remains easy to scan.

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 tool with two parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains both parameters, enumerates valid template names, describes the return structure, and provides a working example. With no annotations, it still gives an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult external documentation.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It lists all valid values for template_name in a clear enumeration, which is critical since the schema provides no enum. For the 'parameters' object, it provides an example with fields like 'user_query', 'app_url', and 'framework', showing how substitution works. Both parameters are thoroughly explained despite the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get a pre-built multi-MCP workflow template.' It specifies the resource (pre-built workflow templates) and the action (get), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_mcp_workflow_templates by focusing on retrieving a single template with customizable parameters rather than listing available ones. The list of available templates further reinforces the specific functionality.

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 strong context for when to use the tool by enumerating the available template names (e.g., 'auth-security-review', 'performance-debug') and giving a concrete example invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or directly compare it with alternatives such as list_mcp_workflow_templates. The usage context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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