workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the result is 'private', 'durable', and bound to the exact profile and target, and crucially that it omits arguments, results, credentials, and Discord payloads. That disclosure of what is NOT returned is genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Two tight, labeled sentences ('Purpose' / 'Returns') with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic but efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only status tool with a full output schema and safe annotations, the description covers the essentials and correctly avoids re-explaining return values. It is thin on how to obtain a valid wf_ id and on error/edge behavior, and the zero-coverage nested parameter is left mostly unexplained.

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% for two required parameters, one of which is a nested object with four sub-fields. The phrase 'bound to the exact profile and target' hints at the binding semantics of the target object, but the description never explains the wf_ id format, why target must match exactly, or which nested fields are optional, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Read a private durable workflow summary'), which clearly distinguishes it from the mutation siblings workflow_start, workflow_resume, and workflow_cancel. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the read/status framing is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to poll this versus workflow_resume/cancel, or what preconditions (e.g., a wf_ id obtained from workflow_start) are required.

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