workflow.graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of explaining behavior. The description is a single phrase ('Summarize workflow graph') that conveys almost nothing about side effects, required permissions, return format, or processing behavior. For a tool that accepts 4 parameters including an optional 'activity' and 'sequential' flag, there is no explanation of how these affect the summary.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Three words ('Summarize workflow graph') do not provide enough information to be useful. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is not even a complete sentence, and no information beyond the tool name.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, 47+ sibling tools including many workflow-related ones), the description is critically insufficient. The tool needs to explain what a summary includes, how parameters affect it, and how it differs from workflow.list/workflow.describe. Currently it provides almost no actionable guidance.

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%, meaning the input schema contains only parameter names and types with no descriptions. The tool description 'Summarize workflow graph' provides zero additional meaning about any of the 4 parameters (activity, sequential, session_id, workflow_name). It does not explain what 'activity' refers to, what 'sequential' controls, or how these parameters shape the summary output.

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 'Summarize workflow graph' is extremely vague. It does not specify what a workflow graph is, what the summary contains (nodes, edges, stats?), or how it differs from other workflow tools like workflow.list, workflow.describe, workflow.insert, etc. The verb is unclear (summarize how?) and the resource is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given there are many other workflow-related sibling tools (workflow.list, workflow.describe, workflow.clone, workflow.insert, etc.), the description provides no context about what distinguishes 'Summarize workflow graph' from listing, describing, or cloning workflows.

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