export_workflow_as_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Safe for sharing' adds genuine context — that output is sanitized for external distribution — which aligns with the schema's stripIds default true and includeCredentials default false. However, it's minimal: it doesn't warn that setting includeCredentials to true undermines the safety promise, nor does it describe output structure or side effects.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact parenthetical that conveys the key safety trait. Zero wasted words, no repetition of schema content, and every element earns its place.

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 tool with 3 params and 100% schema coverage, the essentials for making a correct call are present: workflowId is required and documented. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description could do more — it doesn't address how to choose this over backup_workflow, what the returned JSON template contains, or the security implication of the includeCredentials escape hatch. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 all three parameters (workflowId, stripIds, includeCredentials) are already documented with meaningful detail, including defaults and the INSECURE flag. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('workflow'), and output format ('JSON template'), which is clear and concrete. The 'safe for sharing' qualifier hints at differentiation from siblings like backup_workflow or get_workflow, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The name itself is sufficiently descriptive.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backup_workflow, get_workflow, or import_template. 'Safe for sharing' implies a use case but stops short of stating when to choose this over a backup or a raw workflow retrieval. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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