signal_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether signal delivery is synchronous or queued, what happens if the workflow has already completed or been terminated, whether signals are idempotent/deduplicated, or what a failure looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than adding structure.

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 signal-delivery mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested args object, the description is too thin. It omits delivery semantics, failure modes, and prerequisite workflow state, leaving the agent to infer behavior it cannot verify.

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% (every parameter, including the nested args object and namespace enum, is documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a signal to a running workflow.' An agent can distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_workflow_result or query_workflow. It does not, however, differentiate itself from batch_signal, with which it shares the core action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_signal (multiple targets) or start_workflow. No preconditions (e.g., the workflow must be running and not completed) or error handling are mentioned.

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