cfx_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely lists action names without describing side effects, blocking behavior, authentication needs, or return behavior. The phrase 'one focused action' adds minimal insight.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the action list is compact. Every word earns its place.

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 has 8 distinct actions and a flexible params object, but the description does not elaborate on each action's specific inputs or outputs. With no annotations to fill gaps, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further inference.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how params interact with each action, only echoing that they are action-specific.

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 the tool 'Run one focused CFX lifecycle or artifact action' and lists the specific actions, making it unambiguous. It also differentiates from codegen by explicitly directing custom model setup edits to that sibling tool.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (CFX lifecycle/artifact actions) and explicitly mentions an alternative (codegen) for custom model setup edits. However, it does not explain when to prefer other siblings like connect/disconnect or session_status.

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