inspect_workflow

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the compact scope and the fact that subgraph definitions can contain full inner node/wiring detail.

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 compact sentence packs in purpose, content, and the subgraph caveat without redundant words. Front-loaded key phrase 'Compact view of a session workflow'.

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 one simple parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough for immediate use: it describes the structural view, node details, group views, and subgraph coverage. It does not provide parameter lookup guidance, but this is minor given the low complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. Although workflow_id's purpose is inferable from the tool name, the description adds no explicit detail about the parameter's format, origin, or relationship to resources like list_workflows.

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 a compact inspection view of a session workflow, enumerating what is included (nodes, links, groups, and subgraph detail). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_node_info or search_nodes that cover only a narrow portion of workflow structure.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to get a compact structural overview of a workflow, with expanded detail for subgraph definitions. It implies when the tool is appropriate but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions not to use it.

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