Validate workflow expressions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scanning and flagging behavior, but does not explain what 'flag' means in terms of output or side effects. It lacks details about return format, exceptions, or edge cases.

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, action-oriented sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately states what it checks and what it flags.

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 complex nested input schema, lack of output schema, and absent annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not describe what the tool returns or how success/failure is communicated, leaving the agent with significant unknowns for a validation tool.

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%. The description does not describe the 'workflow' parameter or how to provide it, instead relying entirely on the nested schema. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'node parameters'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' and identifies the exact resource 'node parameters' with '{{ }}' expressions, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like validate_workflow and validate_workflow_connections. It is precise about what it validates.

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 expression validation but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other validators, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Context is clear but only implied.

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