Check a workflow run

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so well: it maps every terminal state to a result (completed → final output, failed/cancelled → error, running → steps so far) and discloses the auth model ('the run_id is the access token'), which is behavior the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the outcome mapping, then the auth note. The arrow notation ('Completed → ...; failed / cancelled → ...') packs three branches into one sentence with zero waste.

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 two-param polling tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to wait, what each outcome returns, how to continue polling, and why no key is required. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both params (baseline 3). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing run_id as the access token and reinforcing the wait_seconds cap and polling contract, which is useful context the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll a workflow run by run_id') and immediately clarifies it is a polling/status tool, which cleanly separates it from siblings like run_workflow, cancel_workflow_run, and list_workflows. An agent knows what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit runtime guidance: wait up to wait_seconds, and if the run is still going, 'call check_workflow_run again'. It also ties run_id to its origin ('returned by run_workflow' in the schema). It does not name a when-not case or an alternative (e.g., cancel_workflow_run), so it stops short of a 5.

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