hydra_read_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that the tool returns raw YAML and is intended as a pre-modification read step, which aligns with the annotations and gives operational context beyond the annotations alone.

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?

Two efficient sentences, with the core action and output front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage rationale in the second. No redundant information or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: read before modifying, pass a path to an existing workflow.yaml, and expect raw YAML. Minor ambiguity remains about how workflow_path should be specified, but it is not a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented workflow_path parameter. It identifies the parameter as an 'existing workflow.yaml file', which gives necessary context, but it does not clarify path conventions, file location, or valid formats. For a single required string parameter, this is sufficient but not thorough.

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 states a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('existing workflow.yaml'), and the output ('raw YAML'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like hydra_write_workflow, hydra_list_workflows, and hydra_run_workflow by focusing on reading an existing file's content.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before modifying a workflow, so it starts from real content rather than memory. It gives clear usage context, though it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools explicitly.

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