workflow_get_freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope of what is read and no other behavioral traits, such as what 'freshness' is expressed as, whether results are per-repository or per-journey, or what happens when no journeyId is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core concept (read freshness/staleness) leads. It is perhaps overly terse for a tool whose key term needs definition, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what is returned, yet it never says whether freshness is a timestamp, an age, or a stale/current flag. For a read tool with an optional filter and no return-value documentation, an agent cannot predict the result shape.

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% and the single optional journeyId parameter is never referenced in the description. 'journey and repository context' hints that a journey may be scoped, but optionality and the behavior when the parameter is omitted are undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource ('freshness (staleness) of journey and repository context'), with a clarifying parenthetical that resolves the ambiguous term 'freshness'. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling workflow_mark_context_stale, leaving the agent to infer the read/write distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The obvious pairing with workflow_mark_context_stale (which presumably invalidates the same freshness state) is never mentioned, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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