get_workflow_status

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

The description states that each call may advance the workflow by dispatching steps, indicating a side effect, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, making the behavioral disclosure misleading.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 availability of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a typical polling tool, including behavior and termination conditions. It lacks mention of initial statuses but is still fairly complete.

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?

There is one required parameter (workflow_id) with schema coverage of 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the current status of a workflow and all its steps, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow status'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like submit_workflow, cancel_workflow, etc.

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 provides polling guidance (every 5-10 seconds) and termination conditions (COMPLETED, FAILED, etc.). It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly discuss when not to use or alternatives, though the context is clear.

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