check_workflow_run_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('query workflow run status') without revealing any behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has rate limits, what format the status information returns in, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just one phrase ('查询工作流运行状态'). While this brevity reflects under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, even though more content would be beneficial.

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 (checking workflow run status with authentication parameters), no annotations, and rich parameter structure, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements (ak/sk parameters), workspace context, or how this differs from other status-checking tools. For a tool with authentication parameters and sibling alternatives, this description is inadequate.

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?

The description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage. The single 'config' parameter contains nested properties (workspace_name, submission_id, ak, sk, endpoint), but the description doesn't explain what these mean or how they relate to checking workflow run status. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding parameter semantics.

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 '查询工作流运行状态' (Query workflow run status) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'check_workflow_run_status'. It specifies the verb ('query') and resource ('workflow run status'), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_build_status' or 'check_ies_status' beyond the resource name. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from similar status-checking tools.

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. There are multiple status-checking sibling tools (check_build_status, check_ies_status, check_workflow_import_status), but the description doesn't explain when this specific workflow run status tool is appropriate versus those others. No context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is provided.

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