Outline Workflow

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden. It does useful work by disclosing what each view returns ('every activity with its exits and where it is reached from'), which effectively communicates the output shape despite there being no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the default marked inline and each view glossed efficiently. No filler or repetition; slightly compressed but readable.

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 read-only viewer with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, output modes, and defaults. It omits only minor context, such as where to discover workflow names (list_workflows) or version-selection edge cases already handled by the schema.

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 baseline is 3; the description slightly exceeds that by explaining what the `nodes` and `outline` views actually contain, going beyond the schema's terse 'Which view. Default outline.' It does not touch the boolean flags, but those are self-documented.

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 ('Show') plus resource ('legacy workflow') and enumerates the four output forms. 'Legacy workflow' implicitly separates it from Flow Designer siblings like get_flow_definition, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 four view modes give implicit guidance on how to pick the `view` argument, but there is no statement about when to choose this tool over get_workflow, export_workflow, or convert_workflow. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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