run_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it runs a workflow on the device, without disclosing side effects, blocking behavior, permission requirements, or failure semantics. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes code.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, an actionable prerequisite, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence contributes value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers how to identify available workflows and how to pass parameters with examples. It is fairly complete for a tool of this complexity, though it could mention error cases or confirm device identification.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so with two concrete examples showing order and format, and explains that params is a JSON string of keyword arguments. It also points to list_skills() for available skills/workflows. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 runs an installed skill workflow on the device, with a specific verb and resource. It also directs users to call list_skills() first, which adds context about the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_flow or run_action, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

It provides a prerequisite (call list_skills() first) and examples, which implies when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like run_flow or run_action, and no exclusions are given.

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