workflow_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it does not advance the workflow, and lists return values. Implies read-only safety; could be more explicit about non-destructive nature but adequate.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: primary action in first sentence, then returns, then usage. Front-loaded with key info, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description lists return categories (progress, findings, changes, optional file status). Adequate for a simple status check tool. Could specify return format, but sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

All parameters are described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds useful warning: 'can be large for big workspaces' for include_all_files, providing value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'get', resource 'workflow v2 session status', and important distinction 'without advancing'. Also lists specific return items, distinguishing it from siblings like workflow_progress and workflow_next.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to check on workflow progress or recover context after interruption', providing clear use cases. Implicitly advises against use when advancement is needed, but no explicit alternatives named.

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