suggest_next

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool analyzes and checks for specific issues, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the workflow or describe the format of the suggestions. The listing of checks adds some transparency, but side effects and output details remain undisclosed.

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 concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and specific checks following. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description provides adequate context for basic usage. It lists the checks performed but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist) or whether the tool is read-only. However, the simplicity of the tool and schema coverage make this sufficient for most cases.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (workflow_id: 'The workflow to analyze.') The tool description adds no new meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool analyzes a workflow and suggests next steps, listing specific checks (unconnected inputs, unused outputs, missing output nodes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_workflow (validation) and get_workflow (retrieval), giving a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for getting next-step suggestions after building a workflow, but it does not mention exclusions or distinguish from validate_workflow or other analysis tools. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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