Reconstruct Workflow History

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it aggregates multiple data types and shows dead ends. No contradictions with annotations, and it provides insight beyond what annotations offer.

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 fairly concise, with key information upfront and bullet points for use cases. It could be slightly tighter, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity while covering essentials.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (reconstructing full history), the description provides a good overview but lacks detail on the output format. No output schema exists, so describing the reconstruction object's structure would enhance 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?

The input schema has one parameter (workflow_id, UUID). Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter. Since it's a simple, standard UUID, the lack of further explanation is acceptable but could be improved with a note on validity.

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 reconstructs full workflow history for handoff/review. It lists aggregated components (tasks, decisions, blockers, etc.) and identifies dead ends. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from similar tools like cph_workflow_summary.

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 lists three use cases: handoff, review, debugging. This provides clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, which would strengthen the dimension.

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