get_declared_workflow

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool inspects 'allowed parameters and validation metadata,' which is a behavioral trait not covered by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides useful insight into what the operation does.

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 one sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is concise and free of filler, earning a top score.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 params, output schema available, annotations provided), the description is sufficient. It explains the core purpose and the follow-up action, while the output schema covers return values. A bit more detail about parameter semantics would elevate it, but it is not incomplete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 should compensate for the lack of parameter details. However, it only mentions 'allowed parameters' without explaining the purpose of 'kind' or 'name.' The enum and parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not explicitly connect them to the tool's function.

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 uses the verb 'Inspect' and specifies the resource ('declared workflow') via the tool name, while mentioning 'allowed parameters and validation metadata' as the focus. This clearly identifies the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_declared_workflows beyond implying a single-workflow lookup.

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 phrase 'then call the matching plan tool' provides a clear usage pattern: inspect metadata first, then proceed to planning. This gives the agent actionable guidance on when to use this tool, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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