Workflow Builder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose key behaviors: multiple modes, interactive creation, validation features (dependency analysis, circular detection), JSON output generation. However, it lacks specifics about side effects (e.g., does 'edit' modify in-place or return new JSON? does 'validate' require file system access?), authentication needs, and the exact output structure. The description adds moderate context beyond the bare schema, but leaves ambiguity.

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 well-structured with clear sections: Modes, Key Capabilities, Validation Features, When to use, Arguments, Outputs. Each section is concise and scannable. Sentences are direct and without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then details specifics. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 (5 modes, 4 mixed parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main dimensions: modes, capabilities, validation features, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. It doesn't specify exact response format or error handling, but the 'Outputs' section gives a general idea. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it, though edge cases (e.g., what if mode=edit without workflow_data?) are not clarified.

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?

The input schema provides minimal info with 0% description coverage in schema. The description compensates reasonably by explaining each parameter: mode lists allowed values, workflow_data for editing/validating/processing, template_type for template mode, file_path for validate mode. It adds meaning ('JSON string or object'), but doesn't provide format details, allowed modes enum (though lists them in prose), or examples. Since schema coverage is low, the description's per-parameter details are valuable, hence a 3 rather than 2.

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 states the tool's purpose: an interactive tool for creating, editing, and validating custom workflows. It explicitly lists various modes and capabilities, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on workflow construction rather than execution. The verb 'create/edit/validate' plus resource 'custom workflows' is specific, though it bundles multiple operations which slightly dulls clarity.

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?

Provides a 'When to use' section with explicit use cases such as creating new workflows, editing/validating before contributing, and generating templates. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the sibling tools (e.g., list_workflows for discovery, run_splunk_search for execution) imply clear boundaries. The several 'use to' bullets are helpful.

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