validate_workflow

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. It explicitly states the tool does not execute the workflow and details four specific checks (node class_types exist, required inputs connected, connection type compatibility, output node exists). This is rich, specific behavioral transparency beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 highly concise: one sentence for the primary purpose and a compact bullet-style list of checks. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly structured, front-loading the main action.

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?

This is a single-parameter validation tool with an output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, non-execution behavior, and specific checks, which is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The output schema handles return value details, and no further context is required.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (workflow_id: 'The workflow to validate.'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No further parameter context is needed.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a workflow for correctness.' It distinguishes itself from execution tools by adding 'without executing it,' and enumerates the exact validation checks performed (node class_types, input connections, type compatibility, output node). This makes the purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like execute_workflow.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies the tool is for pre-execution validation, providing clear context for when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use execute_workflow to run it') or list exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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