Run workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says it returns summaries plus resource links, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether it executes commands, changes state, or requires permissions. The term 'batch' hints at bulk processing but offers no clarity on behavioral implications.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action ('Batch...'). It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. Still, as far as conciseness goes, every word earns its place.

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 high complexity (24 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is completely inadequate. It fails to define what a workflow is, how it is specified, what inputs are required, or what the returned summaries and resource links look like.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations at all. With 24 parameters and numerous enums (depth, target, evidence, provider, execution, outputShape), an agent has no help understanding what parameters like 'ref', 'args', 'query', or 'budgetTokens' mean. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a verb ('Batch'), a resource ('common developer workflow'), and an output ('summaries plus resource links'), which gives some sense of purpose. However, 'common developer workflow' is vague and doesn't specify what workflow or how it is invoked. It doesn't effectively distinguish from siblings like discover_capabilities or read_resource beyond the generic 'workflow' concept.

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, no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions or context provided. The description doesn't help an agent decide between run_workflow and other sibling tools.

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