submit_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions both submission and monitoring, but doesn't describe what 'monitor' entails (polling behavior, output format, error handling). For a workflow execution tool with potential side effects, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether submission is idempotent, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 7 Chinese characters ('提交并监控 Bio-OS 工作流'). While this may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it represents perfect conciseness with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks any elaboration.

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?

For a complex workflow submission tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools offering related functionality, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address critical context like: what happens after submission, how monitoring works, error conditions, authentication requirements (though schema covers AK/SK), or how this integrates with the broader Bio-OS ecosystem represented by sibling tools.

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 no parameter information, but the input schema has 100% description coverage (all 14 parameters in SubmitWorkflowConfig have detailed descriptions). Since schema_description_coverage is effectively 100% (though technically 0% at the top level, all nested properties are documented), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no value beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 '提交并监控 Bio-OS 工作流' (Submit and monitor Bio-OS workflow) states the basic action but is vague about scope and differentiation. It mentions both submission and monitoring, but doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'check_workflow_run_status' or 'delete_submission'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'check_workflow_run_status', 'delete_submission', and 'get_workflow_logs', the description offers no indication of when this submission+monitoring tool is appropriate versus using separate tools for submission and monitoring. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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