meshy_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds beyond these by explicitly stating the tool is local-only and does not refresh remote task status, which is valuable behavioral context about network access and side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 one short sentence with a clear main clause followed by a key limitation. Every word adds value, and the most important behavioral scoping ('Local only; does not refresh remote task status') is placed immediately after the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the core behavior and local-only scope. The main gap is the unexplained run_dir parameter, which prevents complete confidence in calling the tool. Still, the overall complexity is low, so the description is borderline adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate for the run_dir parameter, but it does not explain what run_dir should contain, its format, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'saved workflow' is a weak hint that run_dir points to a local directory, but it is insufficient for a parameter with zero schema documentation.

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 tool reads a saved workflow and its next step, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Local only; does not refresh remote task status,' which separates it from remote-status tools like meshy_list_tasks or meshy_recover_submission.

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 usage through 'Local only; does not refresh remote task status,' suggesting it is for local inspection rather than remote status checking. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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