athena_suggest_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool suggests sequences and flags anti-patterns, clearly indicating a read-only advisory function. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the nature of the tool suggests no destructive actions. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about its non-destructive status.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then adding specific value about anti-patterns. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (suggesting API sequences, views, anti-patterns) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns. It could be enhanced by mentioning the output format (e.g., structured list or markdown), but the current description is largely complete for an advisory tool. Sibling tools are diverse, so this tool's role is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter definitions. The description provides an example for 'goal', adding contextual value beyond the schema's description. However, it adds no extra semantics for 'context' beyond its optional nature. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function: given an integration goal, it suggests recommended API sequences, required Snowflake views, anti-patterns, and warnings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like athena_explain_workflow by focusing on integration planning and suggesting sequences rather than just explaining 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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: when the user has an integration goal. It implies usage for planning integrations and avoiding anti-patterns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., athena_explain_workflow for general workflow explanations), which would strengthen guidance.

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