check_workflow_import_status

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 states the tool queries status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs (e.g., the 'ak' and 'sk' parameters suggest required credentials), rate limits, error conditions, or what the status response entails. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('查询工作流导入状态') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from additional context to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.

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 (involving authentication and specific resource queries), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which mitigates the need to describe return values), the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and parameter details, making it incomplete for effective agent 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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions, placing full responsibility on the tool description. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain the required 'config' object or its nested fields (e.g., 'workspace_name', 'workflow_id', 'ak', 'sk', 'endpoint'). This leaves all parameters undocumented and ambiguous.

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 '查询工作流导入状态' (Query workflow import status) clearly states the action (query/check) and resource (workflow import status), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_workflow_run_status' or 'check_build_status' that also perform status checks on different resources, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after using 'import_workflow'), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'check_workflow_run_status' for run status versus import status. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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