workflow_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'evidence-gated', 'durable planning', 'validation gates', 'memory retrieval', 'confidence', and 'writeback', giving insight into the process and side effects. However, it lacks explicit statements about destructiveness, permissions, or error states, which would be valuable.

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 two paragraphs and an Args list. It front-loads the main purpose and scope. While effective, minor restructuring (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but overall it is efficient.

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 existence of an output schema, return values do not need explanation. The description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter details. It could elaborate on what 'evidence-gated' entails and constraints on user_prompt, but it generally provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section in the description explains each parameter: user_prompt (the request), persist (persist run ID and steps), output_format (markdown or json). This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema titles, especially clarifying the purpose of 'persist' and the options for 'output_format'.

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 creates an evidence-gated workflow run for non-trivial tasks and lists example use cases (build/debug/research/release). It uses specific verbs and resource descriptions, and the focus on durable planning, validation gates, etc., helps distinguish it from simpler tools. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from siblings like 'plan' or 'orchestrate_request_tool'.

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 advises using this for tasks needing durable planning, validation, and writeback, which provides context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or offer alternative tools from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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