workflow_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions the return format. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., state changes), error handling, or authorization needs. The return structure is provided, but that's minimal.

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 very brief (one sentence plus return format), which is concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure like bullet points or sections, but it is not verbose.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be defined), error behavior, or the meaning of fields like 'steps' and 'elapsed_ms'. The output schema exists but is undetailed.

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 description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'input data' for the input parameter, but name and context are unexplained. No parameter descriptions exist, and the description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 'Run a workflow on input data' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like workflow_workflow_define or workflow_workflow_list by focusing on execution. The return format is also specified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use workflow_workflow_define first). The description only states what it does, not when or when 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.