workflow_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get... status and step results' indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the workflow must already be complete, whether it polls or returns immediately, or what statuses are possible. This is acceptable but thin.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the operation and key object. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema covers the core need: what to call, how to identify the workflow, and what kind of information is returned. The lack of an output schema means some detail about the exact result structure is absent, but the description names 'status and step results' sufficiently for basic use.

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%, and the schema already explains that workflowId is the identifier returned by workflow_orchestrator or agent_run. The description merely repeats this information without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status and step results of a workflow'). It also identifies which tools create such workflows, which helps distinguish from workflow_cancel and the broader orchestration tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a specific sibling, but the meaning 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 clear context: use it for workflows executed by workflow_orchestrator or agent_run, and the parameter description states the workflowId comes from those tools. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended trigger context is clear enough.

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