run_public_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'stream-only execution' and 'streaming is not incrementally surfaced', which is ambiguous and does not fully clarify the streaming behavior or side effects. It omits details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 concise with two clauses in one sentence. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, the second part could be split into a separate sentence for improved 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the exact behavior of the stream parameter despite mentioning it. The tool's complexity warrants more detail to be fully complete.

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 already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only providing context that this tool is for public workflows and stream-only execution, which indirectly relates to the stream parameter.

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 'Run' and the resource 'public (unauthenticated-eligible) workflow', specifying the Langflow version and the stream-only execution mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_workflow, which presumably handles authenticated 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 description implies usage for public workflows by noting 'unauthenticated-eligible', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like run_workflow. No exclusions or context are provided. The guidance is implicit and minimal.

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