sx_workflow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks workflow status and optionally bill presence, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, what information it returns, potential error conditions, or side effects. The lack of explicit read-only declaration is a gap for an agent assessing safety.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds a conditional detail. There is no redundant wording. However, it may be too brief to convey all necessary context, but for conciseness itself it scores well.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description lacks essential information about return values, possible workflow states, or how to interpret results. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool's output, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description must explain parameter meanings. It clarifies that bill_id triggers an additional check, but it does not explain the meaning or required format of form_id, which is the only required parameter. The agent cannot infer what form_id represents from the description.

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 explicitly states the action ('查工作流状态' - check workflow status) and the resource (workflow). It also specifies conditional behavior based on the presence of bill_id. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what it does but not the context in which an agent should choose it over other sx_* tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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