slice_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description provides detailed behavioral information: seeds from output nodes, backward dependency closure through real links and virtual Set/Get buses, un-bypasses nodes, and returns a standalone graph. It omits performance or permission details, but the core behavior is well explained.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the key purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and concise.

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 tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (standalone activated graph) and pairs with strip_workflow. It could mention error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a specialized tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the overall process but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides for path, graph, groups, and filename.

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 explicitly states the tool slices one pipeline out of a toggle-template workflow, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting the unique use case (rgthree Fast Groups) and pairing with strip_workflow.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (for toggle-template workflows with multiple pipelines) and suggests pairing with strip_workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies it is for a specific workflow architecture.

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