Inspect a MELRA workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description only adds that the read is of the "current durable" projection, implying a persisted latest-state snapshot, which is modest extra context but no detail on latency, staleness, or what happens for unknown IDs.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the "workflow projection" contains, yet it never says what fields or states are returned. For a state-inspection tool with an undocumented required parameter, this is too thin.

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 workflowId has 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a UUID format and regex. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the agent gets no plain-language meaning, source, or expected value for workflowId beyond the raw pattern.

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?

"Read the current durable workflow projection" names a verb (read) and a resource (workflow), but the term "projection" is unexplained jargon and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like melra_task_status or melra_workflow_control. An agent cannot tell from the description alone what state this returns versus those neighbors.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the ten siblings (e.g., melra_task_status for task-level state, melra_workflow_control or melra_workflow_cancel for actions). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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