strip_workflow

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: it resolves various node types, returns conversion warnings, a node-type summary, and a stripped graph. It notes that the 'format' parameter changes behavior (api vs raw). However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if it modifies the original file, though it implies reading. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden well but could be more explicit about side effects.

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 with two sentences: the first defines the core functionality, and the second explains when to use it and what it returns. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage context, output details, and comparison to siblings. It could mention that the 'graph' parameter expects UI-format JSON, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of path, filename, and graph, and explaining the 'format' parameter's effect. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 defines the tool's purpose: stripping a workflow to a clean, flat API graph by resolving Get/Set buses, Reroutes, subgraphs, and bypassed/muted nodes. It distinguishes itself from get_workflow by stating it reads from any server-side file path, not just the cached workflow library.

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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: use for ad-hoc/expert workflow files that workflow_list and panel_open_workflow cannot resolve. It specifies that exactly one of path, filename, or graph must be provided, and contrasts with get_workflow for library lookups.

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