export_workflow_json

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by explaining the purpose and effect of each output format. The described behavior is consistent with the read-only annotation since it presents an export/rendering action rather than a mutating one.

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, tightly written sentence places the core concept first and packs precise format guidance into a minimal structure. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given that an output schema is present and the annotations cover read-only and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for selecting between formats. The main gap is that it doesn't mention how the workflow_id is obtained or when to choose this tool over alternative workflow-related tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'format' parameter's enum values, but it does not explicitly describe 'workflow_id', even though the name and type make its role largely self-evident.

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 the tool returns a workflow as JSON and distinguishes between the 'ui' and 'api' export formats. It relies on the tool name and the two format options to convey the export action, and it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives concrete guidance on which format to use: 'ui' for a shareable editor-compatible JSON and 'api' for POST /prompt automation. It provides clear context for the tool's main decision but does not explain when to reach for this tool over siblings like save_workflow or inspect_workflow.

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