analyze_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists the output components (useful) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or error behavior. This is a partial disclosure for an analysis tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second gives a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

With only one parameter and a clear description of the tool's returns, the essential usage is covered. It lacks error handling and side-effect disclosure, but for a deep-dive analysis tool, it's fairly complete.

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% and the schema already describes workflowId as a workflow identifier from list_workflows. The description reinforces this but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb 'Deep-dive' on 'one workflow by id' and enumerates the returned data (member nodes, signals with weights, top 5 risk members, runtime-risk hypotheses). Clearly distinguishes from list_workflows which lists workflows, and from other analyze_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after list_workflows identifies the workflow, providing a clear prerequisite and sequencing. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'when-not' aspect.

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