get_workflow_swagger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention required permissions, or describe potential side effects. The description focuses on content rather than safety.

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 two sentences, no redundant phrases. It front-loads the core action and includes both content details and a practical use case. Every sentence contributes meaning without waste.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating what the Swagger definition shows (trigger schemas, request/response formats). However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON OpenAPI spec), potential errors, or required Azure permissions. Given the tool's complexity, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that workflowName is required for Standard SKU, which is not reflected in the schema's optionality. This contextual nuance enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 retrieves the OpenAPI/Swagger definition for a workflow and specifies what it shows (trigger schemas, request/response formats). It is distinct from siblings like 'get_workflow_definition' (returns internal JSON) and 'get_connector_swagger' (for connectors), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides a usage condition ('For Standard SKU, workflowName is required') and a use case ('Useful for API documentation or generating client SDKs'). However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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