neurover_workflow_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response includes nodes, edges, version and canvas settings — meaningful since no output schema exists — but says nothing about size, completeness, or failure behavior for a missing workflowId.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the payload contents. It loses a point only because the fragment lacks a verb, making it read as a label rather than an instruction.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering return shape, the description does too little: it omits parameter roles and any indication of what the returned graph looks like or how large it may be.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. It never explains that 'workflowId' (required) selects the canvas, nor what the optional 'account' parameter does, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 enumerates the payload ('плитки (узлы), связи, версия, настройки полотна') but uses no verb and never states that this tool retrieves/returns the graph. An agent can infer it reads a workflow's canvas, yet nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as neurover_draft_view or neurover_workflows beyond the noun list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must guess whether this is the right call for inspecting a workflow versus listing workflows or viewing a draft.

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