workflow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the returned fields (status, last completed step, assigned agent, timestamps) and explicitly states what it does NOT return. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate.

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 purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from a sibling. The output schema covers return details.

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 should explain the run_id parameter. However, it only mentions 'workflow' in the description, leaving the parameter undefined. No details on format or source are given.

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 'Get the current status of a workflow', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling workflow_resume by noting it is a lightweight alternative that does not return step outputs.

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 explicitly says 'lightweight alternative to workflow_resume' and instructs to use workflow_resume when step outputs are needed, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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