workflow_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only describes parameters without disclosing side effects, how the execution happens, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, with a single-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list format is somewhat terse.

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?

The description adequately covers input parameters but lacks any mention of output, errors, or behavior beyond execution. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves gaps for understanding the tool's full effect.

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 coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: workflow_id, workflow_type (with enum values), engineer (with condition), and mode (with values). This adds essential meaning beyond the input schema.

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's purpose: '执行已审核通过的工单' (execute audited work orders). It specifies a concrete verb and resource, and from the sibling list, it is distinct from submission, audit, and list operations.

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 implies usage for executing audited workflows but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions.

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