workflow_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pass or terminate but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens after the audit (e.g., workflow progression). The behavioral impact is minimal.

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 one-line summary followed by a parameter list, all in Chinese. It is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted words. The structure is straightforward, though the parameter list could be formatted more neatly.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter explanations but lacks usage context, error conditions, return values, or post-audit behavior. It is incomplete for understanding the full tool behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining workflow_type (1,2,3) and audit_type (pass, cancel). However, engineer, workflow_id, and audit_remark lack additional context beyond their names. Two of five parameters get clear semantics.

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 reviews work orders (pass or terminate), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_submit and workflow_execute by focusing on the audit action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_list, workflow_pending_list, or workflow_submit. The context is implied from the tool name and siblings, but no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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