tigergraph__get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the return structure: an ordered list of tools, example parameters, and explanations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, bullet points for when to use, return details, and the workflow list. It is concise and front-loaded, though the workflow list is duplicated in the schema. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and the available workflows. It does not mention limitations (e.g., that templates may not cover every scenario), but this is minor given the tool's nature and annotations.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter workflow_type, including a description listing all six options and what each does. The description repeats the same list in the 'Available workflows' line, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a step-by-step workflow template for common TigerGraph tasks, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow template'. It distinguishes itself from the many action-oriented siblings by being a meta-guidance tool, and the list of available workflows makes its scope explicit.

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 provides 'Use this tool when' conditions: complex multi-step tasks, best practices, and new-user guidance. This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives like 'discover_tools' or explicitly state when not to use it. Still, the guidance is unambiguous.

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