get_workflow_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool '获取工作流配置' (gets workflow configuration), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with a single sentence: '获取工作流配置 - 支持stage1/2/3阶段' (Get workflow configuration - supports stage1/2/3 phases). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the stage support detail. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and stage scope but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return format, error handling) and usage guidelines. With no annotations and no output schema, it should provide more context for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'stage' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'stage1/2/3阶段' (stage1/2/3 phases), which is already covered in the schema's enum. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 purpose: '获取工作流配置' (get workflow configuration) with the specific resource '工作流配置' (workflow configuration). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning support for 'stage1/2/3阶段' (stage1/2/3 phases), which aligns with the enum values in the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'load_config' or 'show_config_summary'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions support for specific stages, but doesn't indicate when to use it over sibling tools such as 'get_file_naming_rules' or 'get_smart_retrieval_config'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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