get_article_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it states 'Writes nothing', discloses the credit cost (0 credits), and adds a subtle state caveat that 'accepted is not completed'. It stops short of describing any permission requirements or pagination behavior, but the safety profile and cost are clearly disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with the returned resources before the optional comparison mode. The phrase 'Missing metadata is unknown' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but overall very little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description appropriately focuses on scope, comparison behavior, cost, and the read-only guarantee. The main remaining gap is routing guidance relative to the many sibling read tools, but for a low-risk read operation with a documented output shape this is close to complete.

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 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains what compare_live does—a comparison of saved revision text, links, images, structure and metadata against the live site—but article_id and project_id are left entirely undocumented beyond being self-evident names, and no formats or constraints are given.

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 names concrete resources the tool returns: editor links, published article conflicts, and last CMS transfer status. That is more specific than the name 'get_article_workflow' alone would allow, and it implicitly separates itself from a plain content read, though it never names a sibling like get_article or get_content_status.

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 gives conditional guidance for one mode ('With compare_live, compare the saved revision's text, links, images, structure and metadata against the website'), which tells the agent when to set that flag. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool instead of get_article, get_content_status, or recall, so the alternative-selection problem is left to inference.

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