test_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs a test, implying execution and potential side effects, but does not detail outcomes, error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs operations with consequences.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of running tests, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage in a workflow context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'configPath' and 'payloadName' implicitly but does not explain their meanings, formats, or examples. It adds minimal value beyond naming the parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('a single payload test from a workflow config JSON file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'run_workflow_suite' or 'evaluate_workflow_result', which might involve similar testing or evaluation functions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid config file or payload, or compare it to siblings like 'run_workflow_suite' for broader testing. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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