Get workflow execution status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: polling behavior, terminal statuses, and that `result` is populated at terminal state. No contradictions.

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: two sentences plus a bullet list of statuses. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and statuses. No superfluous 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?

For a simple polling tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, polling behavior, statuses, and result availability. It is complete given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 single parameter executionId is fully described in the input schema with 'Execution ID from workflow_execute' (schema coverage 100%). The description does not add further parameter details, but baseline is 3 given high coverage. The description references waitForResult context, which is about the previous call, not the parameter itself.

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 'Get the current state and result of a workflow execution', specifying the action (get) and resource (workflow execution). It also lists valid statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like workflow_execute (which starts execution) and workflow_interact (which may modify execution).

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 explicit polling guidance: 'Poll until status is COMPLETED (or terminal) when waitForResult was false.' This tells agents when to use the tool (after workflow_execute with waitForResult=false) and implies not needed if waitForResult=true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but context from sibling tools is sufficient.

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