View Workflow

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the exact behavioral differences: finite definitions produce visualization+validation, while agent workflow scripts produce parse/readiness state and a best-effort plan estimate. This adds valuable insight into expected behavior without contradicting 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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose. Every clause adds value: purpose, type-specific behavior, and accepted input format. No wasteful repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and under what conditions. It covers the key differentiators and usage context, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of parameter workflow_id, including examples. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'catalog name' and 'workflow id you authored,' but does not add substantially new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 action: 'Confirm a workflow as it is being built.' It also distinguishes between two workflow types and what each returns, which differentiates it from siblings like view_workflow_run or list_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 phrase 'as it is being built' gives clear context for when to use this tool (during construction/validation of a workflow). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it is not for viewing runs or listing workflows, which are covered by siblings.

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