workflow_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the error/warning distinction (errors mean the builder would mis-render or drop something; warnings mean it opens but something looks wrong) and that findings are keyed to node or edge IDs. It does not state explicitly that validation is read-only/non-destructive or note any prerequisites, but the semantics are far beyond a bare 'validate'.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the input constraint, then the error/warning semantics, then the finding format. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly covers purpose, the mutually exclusive input rule, and the meaning of the two finding severities. Given no annotations, it could still say the operation is read-only, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds genuinely new information beyond the schema: the two inputs are mutually exclusive ('exactly one of file_path or workflow'), which the schema's default-null properties do not express. It does not add format details for either parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check a workflow') and scopes it to the Workflow Builder's rules plus the SOLVE-IT knowledge base. An agent can tell this is a validation tool, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like workflow_compile or workflow_inspect, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only usage-oriented statement is the input rule ('Give exactly one of file_path or workflow'), which is a constraint rather than guidance on when to validate versus compile or inspect. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.

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