run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it executes a workflow and returns results, but omits details such as whether the operation is synchronous, idempotent, or has side effects, nor does it mention error handling or prerequisites.

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, consisting of two sentences and an Args section. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more terse by removing the docstring-style formatting.

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 presence of an output schema, the description can focus on inputs and behavior. It adequately covers the two required parameters and purpose, but lacks context on preconditions (e.g., workflow must exist) and execution semantics, which are important for an execution tool.

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 description adds value beyond the sparse schema by specifying that workflow_id is a UUID and input_text is the input text/prompt. However, it does not elaborate on formatting constraints or expected values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 executes a workflow and returns results, using a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('workflow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_workflow (creation) and get_workflow (read).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It lacks any comparative or conditional usage context, relying solely on the tool's name for differentiation.

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