observe_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — repeated successful patterns may create a library tool — which is valuable. However, it is vague: it doesn't state what 'may create' means (automatic, asynchronous, threshold-based), what happens on failure, whether the record is persisted/reversible, or any auth/rate implications.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Record one workflow occurrence') and appends the consequential side effect in a second clause. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks field semantics, the trigger conditions for library tool creation, and safety expectations — all unaddressed by the one-line description.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. The agent is left guessing what belongs in task vs description, what success/tags/sample/project control, and which fields are essential. With low coverage, the description was required to compensate and did not.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Record one workflow occurrence'), which clearly communicates an observation/logging action and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like create_library_tool or analyze_repeated_workflows. The second clause adds purpose context by linking repeated successful patterns to eventual library tool creation, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 imperative 'Record one workflow occurrence' implies when to call the tool (after completing a workflow step), and the 'repeated successful patterns may create a library tool' clause hints at the downstream consequence. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated alternatives, and no clarification of how this relates to create_library_tool or analyze_repeated_workflows.

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