get_workflow_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the event model, the direction of events, and even notes that a workflow that never received anything can still have events. While it doesn't discuss side effects, it clearly implies a read operation and provides behavioral context beyond a simple 'get'.

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 well-structured with an opening summary, a clarifying note on event direction, an explicit alternative, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section adds useful information, and the structure aids comprehension.

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 tool's modest complexity, two simple string parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the event model, parameter meanings, return value shape, and the relevant sibling alternative, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: application_name as 'Name of the DBOS application' and workflow_id as 'ID of the workflow'. This gives the agent the semantic meaning needed to populate the required fields correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get events published by a workflow from DBOS Conductor.' It also distinguishes itself from the similar sibling get_workflow_notifications by explicitly contrasting outbound events with messages sent TO a workflow, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: events are outbound, published via setEvent, and read via getEvent by anyone holding the workflow ID. It explicitly names the alternative tool for inbound messages ('To see messages sent TO a workflow, use get_workflow_notifications instead.'), giving an agent a direct routing decision.

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