Workflow Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond these flags by specifying what readiness includes (missing modules, add-ons, tools, write opt-ins) and the 'active runtime' scope, giving the agent a clearer picture of the tool's output focus.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without filler. Every element (workflows, readiness, specific dimensions) earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the scope ('curated AirMCP workflows', 'active runtime') and the key readiness factors. It does not specify return format, but the existence of an output schema covers that.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'id' is already described with examples in the schema. The description does not add any extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource as 'curated AirMCP workflows' and their readiness in the active runtime. It enumerates the readiness dimensions (missing modules, add-ons, tools, write opt-ins), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workflow.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to check if workflows are ready. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as profile_status or get_workflow, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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