Workflows: file handler example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the output is a copy-paste-ready JSON, it uses {{ $anythink... }} template placeholders for source URL/record id/folder, and it explicitly 'changes nothing in the project'. It does not detail any size or format limits, but for a pure read/example tool this is strong.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: output description first, then the template detail, then the routing alternatives. Front-loaded with what the agent gets.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it explains what is returned (a JSON sample with template placeholders) and what to do with it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify in terms of argument semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 and resource ('Print a copy-paste-ready FileHandler params JSON'), and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming workflows_step_add, workflows_step_update, and workflows_file_handler_add. An agent can tell this is a sample/example generator rather than a mutating tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (to get params to adapt for workflows_step_add / workflows_step_update) and when a sibling is better (workflows_file_handler_add for directly adding a FileHandler step). The routing decision is fully specified.

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