check_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the security checks performed (mutable action pins, compromised actions, untrusted owners, etc.) and states the return values (risk score and merge recommendation). It does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects, but the nature of validation implies no modifications.

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 sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Validate a CI workflow before merging') and then lists specific checks and return value. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the input (workflow YAML), the checks performed, and the output (risk score and recommendation). It does not detail the return format beyond that, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand its function.

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 2 parameters (platform and workflow_content) with 50% description coverage (only workflow_content has a schema description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond the schema. For low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide extra guidance on parameter usage.

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 verb 'validate', the resource 'CI workflow (GitHub Actions / GitLab CI YAML)', and the context 'BEFORE merging a PR that touches it', effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like check_package, score_manifest, and verify_lockfile which operate on different artifacts.

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 'before merging a PR' and lists specific security checks being performed, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, though the sibling tools are clearly different in domain.

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