List automation steps

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: the steps form a tree, must be reconstructed using parent_uuid and step_order, and an automation with no steps returns an empty list. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, providing essential interpretation guidance.

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?

The description is concise and efficient: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence provides essential structural detail. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only list operation. It explains the output structure (flat list, tree reconstruction via parent_uuid and step_order) and the empty-list behavior. It does not describe all potential output fields, but the critical ones are covered. Given the lack of an output schema, this is sufficient, though it could mention pagination or limits if applicable.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions ('Profile uuid parameter' and 'Automation uuid parameter') are minimal and essentially restate the parameter names. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline without improvement.

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's function: 'Get the workflow of an automation as a flat list of steps.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow of an automation as a flat list of steps' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like reach_getAutomationDetailsV1 (which likely returns automation details) and reach_listAutomationsV1 (which lists automations). The 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need the steps of a specific automation), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a tool with many related siblings (e.g., automations, campaigns, forms), more explicit guidance would help, but the intent is reasonably inferable from the name and description.

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