analyze_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool loads a workflow and returns a text summary, which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or limitations, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, usage, and distinction from a sibling.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return type as 'concise text summary (not raw JSON) optimized for AI reasoning.' It covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use, and parameter guidance. Minor omission is not explicitly stating it does not modify the workflow.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the description adds value by providing usage context: 'Use view='list' first to see available section names' and 'Use list_workflows to see available files.' This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'saved workflow', and specifies the output: 'structured analysis — sections, node settings, connections, and data flow.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_workflow by stating when to prefer raw JSON.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to understand any workflow before modifying or executing it.' It also states when not to use it ('unless you need the raw JSON for enqueue_workflow or modify_workflow'), and suggests using list_workflows to find filenames.

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