get_agent_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it makes clear this is a read of static workflow content, which implies safety, but says nothing about behavior for an unrecognized agent name or whether the result varies by configuration. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant formatting but not harmful, and the allowed values are placed where they are easy to scan.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description supplies what the schema lacks (valid values) and what the tool returns. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the schema defines no enum, so the description's enumeration of the four valid agent values ('migration', 'implementation', 'audit', 'operations') adds real constraint the agent would otherwise lack. It does not explain case sensitivity or what happens with other values.

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 and resource (get the workflow, phases, and checklists for a Lumis agent) and names the content returned. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_gotchas or traverse_decision_tree, which also retrieve agent-oriented guidance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools, nor any prerequisite or sequencing hint. The only implied usage comes from the generic phrase 'for a specific Lumis agent', leaving the agent to infer its place in the workflow.

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