Workflow Sentinel

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already signals this is a non-destructive read/prediction tool, and the description's 'predict... before execution' framing is consistent with that. The description adds value by disclosing the predictive/passive nature (predicts rather than enforces) and the scope (risk, blast radius, remediations). It does not disclose output format, but as a prediction tool with no output schema this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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, dense sentence with zero wasted words. It packs the verb, resource, scope (workflow risk, blast radius, remediations), and timing (pre-action) into one efficient sentence. No fluff, no redundancy with the title.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 26 parameters, many nested objects, and 6 workflow pattern enum values. No output schema exists to explain return values. While the 100% schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation help, the description is quite thin for such a complex prediction tool - it doesn't mention what the output shape is, how it consumes the 26 available parameters, or any constraints on which parameter combinations are meaningful. For a tool this intricate, more contextual detail would be warranted.

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%, so the schema already documents all 26 parameters well. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Following the calibration baseline for high coverage, this is a solid 3 - the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little parameter context, though the core concept (what inputs drive the prediction) could benefit from a sentence highlighting the key input parameters like toolName, params, and workflow.

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 'Predict pre-action workflow risk, blast radius, and remediations before a tool call executes' clearly states the verb (predict), the resource (workflow risk/blast radius/remediations), and provides timing context (before execution). It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like prevention_rules or gate_check, though the 'workflow risk prediction' angle is somewhat distinct among the many planning/sentry tools.

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 implies it is used before a tool call executes ('pre-action', 'before a tool call executes'), which establishes timing context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools such as prevention_rules, gate_check, or approve_protected_action for gate/enforcement scenarios. Given the 49 sibling tools, more explicit differentiation would help.

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