get_workflow_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool is for listening and that background processing keeps the client responsive. However, it does not disclose rate limits, timeouts, or failure behaviors.

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 overly verbose with all-caps emphasis and repeated phrases like 'THIS IS NORMAL OPERATION!' and 'OPTIMAL BEHAVIOR'. It could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how updates are delivered (e.g., polling vs streaming). This gap reduces completeness.

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%, and the description adds context: workflowId comes from a background status message, and operationName is optional for type restoration. This augments the schema descriptions.

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 is for continuing to listen to background workflows, with a specific verb ('CONTINUE LISTENING') and resource ('BACKGROUND WORKFLOW'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like execute_custom_workflow by explaining it handles background processing.

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 states when to use the tool ('when a workflow runs in the background') and provides parameters to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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