workflow_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. 'Rehash' could imply recomputation or caching side effects, yet the description never states whether this is a read-only summary, what it reads, or whether it writes anything. No mention of permissions, refresh costs, or how config_path influences behavior.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no padding, but 'Rehash current artifacts' is a wasteful, unclear lead that buries the real purpose behind ambiguous terminology. Front-loading the summarization targets would make it stronger.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description still lacks the basics an agent needs: what artifacts are summarized, what a 'stage' means here, and what config_path supplies. For a workflow-status tool with siblings covering config, jobs, and reports, this leaves the selection decision underspecified.

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?

The single parameter config_path has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Unlike the zero-parameter baseline, this tool has one undocumented required parameter, and the definition does nothing to clarify what a config path points to or what format it takes.

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 names summarization targets (stage evidence, manual observations, coverage, delivery readiness), which implies a status/reporting tool, but 'rehash current artifacts' is vague jargon and the resource (workflow) is never stated plainly. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like report_read or job_get, leaving ambiguity about which summarizer to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus report_read, job_get, job_reconcile, or config_read. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions that select this tool over its siblings — the agent must infer from the name alone.

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