query_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the workflow is not running or the query name is invalid). The brief description provides minimal transparency beyond purpose.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, it could include more critical details (e.g., state constraints) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has three parameters (one optional), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the query mechanism, required query handler existence, or return format. The agent lacks context to correctly invoke or interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters (e.g., what 'args' should contain or how 'query_name' relates to the workflow definition). It meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 'Query a running workflow for its current state' clearly indicates the verb (query), resource (running workflow), and objective (current state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_workflow (which likely describes workflow metadata) and get_workflow_result (which retrieves final result). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar query operations.

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 like describe_workflow or get_workflow_result. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be running) or conditions under which the tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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