lookup_workflow_by_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents the return format (found boolean and workflow details) and implies a non-mutating lookup. It lacks explicit statements about permissions or side effects, but the example and return description provide reasonable transparency for a simple lookup.

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 sections for Args, Returns, and Example. The opening two sentences are slightly redundant ('Find a workflow...' and 'Search for a workflow...'), but overall it is concise and every section contributes to usability.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return format including the not-found case, and provides an example, leaving no critical 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?

The input schema only specifies 'url' as a string, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'The source URL to search for (e.g., GitHub URL to script).' This gives context for the parameter's format and purpose, going well 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?

The description opens with 'Find a workflow by its source URL,' which clearly states the tool's action and resource. It also explains the use case of checking for existing workflows before creating one, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_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 description explicitly says 'Use this to check if a workflow for a specific script or notebook already exists before creating a new one,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'before creating a new one' implies comparison with create_workflow.

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