tigergraph__get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the return format (ordered list, example parameters, explanations) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Since 'get' implies read-only, it's adequate but not fully transparent.

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 bold headings and bullet lists, is succinct, and contains no redundant information.

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?

It includes the return format and available workflows, which provides sufficient context for a simple tool. It does not include examples or error handling, but those are not critical for this use case.

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 one required parameter with a detailed description listing all possible values and meanings. The tool description itself does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 it 'Get a step-by-step workflow template' and the 'Use this tool when' section reinforces the purpose. The name also matches.

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 'Use this tool when' section gives specific conditions (complex multi-step task, best practices, new to TigerGraph), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so slightly less explicit than a perfect score.

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