sc: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. It mentions parallel execution but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what gets affected (e.g., does it modify state?). The behavioral insight is 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 a single sentence with category and priority tags, front-loading key information. Every word earns its place, though it is brief.

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 tool's complexity (orchestration with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how parallel execution works. The schema covers parameters, but operational context is lacking.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters relate to 'multi-stage workflow orchestration' or 'parallel execution'. The schema already describes the flags and agent, so no penalty.

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 'Multi-stage workflow orchestration with parallel execution', specifying the verb (orchestrates) and resource (multi-stage workflows) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like sc:task or sc:implement by emphasizing orchestration and parallelism.

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 provides context via 'Category: orchestration, Priority: IMPORTANT', implying use for orchestration tasks, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or references to alternatives like sc:task or sc:spawn.

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