Inspect workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context that the tool returns the current workflow and version history, clarifying the scope of the inspection. No contradictions and no need for more detail given the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and effectively conveys the tool's function.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately indicates what the tool returns (current workflow and version history). It does not explain the return format or record limits, but for a basic inspection tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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 covers the only parameter (jobId) with a description ('The job ID'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no additional meaning or context for the parameter, but the schema already suffices, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 inspects the current Studio workflow and its version history for a job. The verb 'inspect' is specific, and the resource/scope ('workflow', 'version history', 'job') distinguishes it from siblings like validate_workflow, draft_workflow, and preview_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 implies when to use the tool (for inspecting a job's workflow and history) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention exclusions or compare with sibling tools such as compare_workflows or validate_workflow.

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