workflow_run

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it returns each step's output in order with timing, aborts on a failing step unless the step is optional, records optional-step errors and continues, and reports skipped items in capped fan-out scenarios. This is far beyond the minimal readOnlyHint/destructiveHint context.

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?

All four sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, the second explains return behavior and failure semantics, the third clarifies fan-out behavior, and the fourth gives a usage prerequisite. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, which it does clearly: step outputs in order, timing, failure details, and skipped-item counts. Combined with the annotation safety profile and complete parameter schemas, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% with clear examples for both 'name' and 'input', so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing the agent to pull the name from workflow_list and framing 'input' as the workflow's required inputs, which explains the meaning of the nested object beyond the schema's generic example.

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 opens with 'Run a saved workflow by name,' a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling workflow_list by noting it bundles several tools into one call. An agent can immediately tell this executes a workflow rather than listing workflows.

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 instructs the agent to 'Use workflow_list first to see names and required inputs,' giving a clear prerequisite and sequencing. It does not go as far as stating explicit alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear that this is for running a pre-defined multi-step workflow.

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