get_workflow_status

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Get', implying a read operation without detailing side effects, authentication needs, or return format. The behavior of the optional run_id parameter is not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, and additional context could be added without significant bloat, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is not complete. It fails to clarify behavior when run_id is omitted, what status information is returned, or how it fits with sibling workflow tools, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 already describes run_id as 'Optional run ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'CI/CD workflow status', clearly indicating a read operation. It is distinct from siblings like trigger_workflow and cancel_workflow, though it does not specify whether it returns a single run or all runs, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how run_id filters results or what happens when it is omitted, and there is no differentiation from related tools like get_dora_metrics or analyze_workflow_failures.

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