workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful execution behavior: topological ordering, retries, checkpoints, and chain-wide authorization. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or what happens after execution.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose: executing a DAG. Every phrase—topological data flow, retries, checkpoints, authorization—adds distinct value without filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description does not explain the optional parameters or return/result behavior. The core DAG-execution context is present, but the agent would still need to infer how 'approveAsks' and 'grantTokenId' work.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies 'dag'. The optional parameters 'task', 'inputs', 'approveAsks', and 'grantTokenId' are left unexplained; the '整链授权' phrase implicitly relates to authorization parameters, but not explicitly.

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 identifies a specific verb (执行/execute) and resource (the DAG produced by skill_plan), which clearly separates it from the skill_* siblings. It also names key behaviors of the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast it with skill_run.

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 clearly implies the usage context: after skill_plan has produced a DAG, this tool runs it. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it lacks the strongest routing guidance, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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