advance_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the returned information (completed tasks, failed tasks, etc.) and explains smart failure handling. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, which slightly reduces transparency.

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 concise at 56 words, with purpose stated first, followed by return details and failure handling. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains when to use the tool, what it returns, and key behavior (failure handling). The listed return fields compensate for the missing output schema.

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% for the single parameter 'runId', so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('The ID of the workflow run to advance').

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 clearly states the verb 'advance' and the resource 'workflow run'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_next_tasks' by specifying it actively advances the run and returns newly unlocked tasks, not just lists them.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'after tasks are completed/failed', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which would enhance guidance.

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