derive_tool_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether derivation is deterministic, whether it writes anything, what permissions are needed, or how the candidate schema is returned or selected. 'Derives' implies a read/compute but that is left implicit.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It should clarify input semantics, when to use it versus siblings, and what 'candidate' output means.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies that workflow_id (and/or node_name) provide the source parameters for derivation, which adds minimal meaning, but it does not explain the role of node_name versus workflow_id or what happens when node_name is omitted.

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 'Derives' and resource 'candidate IO schema' with a source 'workflow node parameters', which is concrete and reasonably distinguishable from siblings like inspect_node_output_shape or validate_tool_io. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings such as inspect_node_output_shape and validate_tool_io that sound adjacent, this omission leaves the agent guessing which tool to pick.

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