review_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Performs structural validation only — does NOT call into other skills,' clarifying the read-only nature and constraints. No contradictions.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and key constraint, uses bullet points for error checks, and has well-structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, the description fully specifies inputs, outputs (verdict, findings, summary), and behavioral constraints. Annotations cover safety hints. No gaps given the tool's validation-only role.

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%, but the description documents 'workflow_id: The workflow ID returned by plan_workflow,' adding provenance constraints beyond the schema's bare type/required annotation.

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 'Sanity-check a planned workflow before execution' and specifies it performs structural validation only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_workflow or plan_workflow. It lists specific error types caught, making the purpose precise.

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 states when to use ('before execution') and what it does NOT do (does not call into other skills). It lists common errors it catches, guiding usage context. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear.

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