get_workflow_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Read'), explains the purpose of the file, and gives an example of the kind of content it contains. It does not explicitly mention error handling or return format, but the output schema is present, and the description adds useful context about the file's naming convention and when guides exist.

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?

Although the description is longer than a simple sentence, every part earns its place: the opening sentence states the purpose, the middle explains the reasoning with a concrete example, the third gives usage guidance, and the final documents the parameter. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is comprehensive. It explains why the tool exists, when to use it, how to identify applicable workflows, and the exact format of the parameter. The output schema presumably covers return values, so the description needn't elaborate further. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 has one parameter with no description, but the description provides the necessary clarification: 'workflow file name, without the .json extension.' This is critical information that the schema lacks, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. The parameter is fully explained.

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 reads an instruction file that ships with a workflow, using the specific verb 'Read' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_workflow by explaining that it retrieves the guide file, not the workflow definition. The example with Ideogram 4 adds concrete context.

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 says to read and follow the guide before calling run_workflow, which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains that workflows with a guide are flagged as `guide` by list_workflows and describe_workflow, providing a way to identify when this tool is applicable versus alternatives.

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