generate_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool scans directories, reads project files, and produces an HTML file. Could mention nondestructive nature or that it doesn't modify files, but current detail is sufficient.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, supported projects, and detection capabilities. Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy; could be more structured but not wasteful.

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, description thoroughly explains what the generated HTML contains and lists many detectable components. Provides complete understanding of tool's capabilities and output.

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% and parameters are well-described in schema. Description adds context that output file is a visual workflow, but doesn't enhance meaning beyond schema definitions for the three parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans a project directory and generates a visual workflow HTML file. Verb 'generate' with specific resource 'WORKFLOW.html' and explicit detection capabilities distinguish it from sibling 'analyze_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?

Description specifies supported project types (Python, Node.js, Go, mixed) and frameworks, giving clear context for when to use. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to alternatives like analyze_workflow.

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