sage_run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it returns success, per-step status, duration, compact output, and discloses side effects ('runs the workflow's local commands and may change files'). This adds significant transparency beyond what annotations would provide.

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 compact (5 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value (use case, return, side effects, exclusion). No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and side effects. It covers the two parameters well. A slight gap: no mention of error handling if workflow doesn't exist, but overall sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful examples for workflow_name (test, lint, build, ci) and clarifies workflow_path usage ('Optional path... Omit to use the default'). This goes beyond the bare schema.

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 runs a named local workflow through SAGE, listing concrete examples (test, lint, build, ci). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on structured workflow execution rather than individual shell calls.

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 gives clear when-to-use context ('when the project has a repeatable workflow and you want one structured result instead of several separate shell calls') and a specific exclusion ('Do not use for deployment unless the user explicitly requested deployment'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools but provides strong guidance.

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