ada_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool returns instructions. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, with the main purpose upfront followed by usage instructions and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall 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 that an output schema exists (true), the tool description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the tool's input and behavior for a tool that returns workflow instructions. The mention that the agent must produce output according to the returned format provides necessary 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It provides basic meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'komut' is an ADA command, with examples; 'gorev' is optional context; 'lang' is language). While helpful, it lacks details like accepted formats or constraints beyond examples.

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 that the tool returns instructions and format for running an ADA workflow command. It uses a specific verb ('döndürür') and resource ('workflow talimat ve formatı'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ada_komutlar or ada_kurallar, though the implied distinction is present.

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 explains that the tool should be used when a /command or free task description is provided to retrieve workflow rules. It gives examples but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (siblings), leaving room for ambiguity.

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