get_declared_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool exposes parameter and validation metadata, but it does not mention return shape, errors, or whether 'call the matching plan tool' is an action the agent must take rather than something the tool does. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Inspect allowed parameters and validation metadata'). However, the second clause 'then call the matching plan tool' is arguably guidance rather than a description of the tool itself, which slightly reduces focus. No word is wasted, but the sentence could be clearer by separating tool function from agent workflow.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and strong annotations, but the description does not explain what a 'declared workflow' is, what 'allowed parameters' means, or how to map the 'kind' parameter to the corresponding plan tool among many siblings. For an agent facing dozens of planning and extraction tools, this description leaves important routing details implicit.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'kind' and 'name' parameters, but it says nothing about them. 'Allowed parameters' plausibly refers to the workflow's own parameters, not the input schema, leaving both required inputs undocumented. There is no hint about valid kind values or how name relates to the declared workflow.

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 names a resource ('allowed parameters and validation metadata') and an action ('inspect'), but it never explicitly states that the tool returns a declared workflow. The 'then call the matching plan tool' clause conflates the tool's function with a downstream agent action, which muddies what the tool itself does. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling list_declared_workflows.

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 instruction to 'call the matching plan tool' implies this tool is used as a precursor to planning, which is a legitimate usage context. However, it does not say when to prefer this over list_declared_workflows or how to select the correct plan tool for a given kind. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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