analyze_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description does good work by disclosing that the tool neither runs workers nor modifies files, which is the key safety profile for an analysis tool. It also says what is inspected, compensating partly for the lack of output schema, though it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or execution costs.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most important behavioral constraint. Every clause earns its place and no sentence is wasted.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, a nested task array, 29% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level purpose and names the kinds of results returned. However, it omits guidance on constructing the DAG input or key parameters, so an agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently in non-trivial cases.

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 only 29%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance at all. It does not explain the required tasks and workspace inputs, the nested task fields, or how write_paths/read_paths affect conflict detection, leaving the agent to infer heavily from the schema.

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 (Inspect) and resource (DAG/workflow) and enumerates the analysis outputs: parallel stages, critical-path estimate, redundant edges, and file conflicts. It clearly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings like submit_workflow and wait_workflow by scoping to pre-execution inspection.

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 phrase 'before execution' gives clear timing context for when to use this tool, and 'Does not run workers or modify files' implicitly steers the agent toward submission/execution siblings for those actions. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or list exclusion conditions beyond the non-mutation note.

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