didit_workflow_get_graph

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

Although annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), description adds critical detail about config summarization to prevent overflow and the include_config parameter to retrieve raw config. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and what's included; second gives usage guidance and alternative. No fluff, information is front-loaded.

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?

With output schema present, description covers return structure and behavior modifications (summarization). All parameters documented; no gaps for a read-only graph retrieval tool.

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 parameters already described in schema (100% coverage); description adds context: organization_id and application_id are optional and auto-resolved, and include_config controls verbosity of configs. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 provides a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'node/graph for a workflow', listing included elements (nodes, branches, conditions, etc.) and excluded configs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like didit_workflow_edit_graph.

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?

Explicitly states to pass only workflow_id, with automatic org/app resolution. Provides clear alternative for modifications: 'To MODIFY the graph, prefer didit_workflow_edit_graph' with rationale.

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