Workflow Readiness

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what the tool explains (missing modules, add-ons, etc.). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, annotations covering safety, and presence of an output schema), the description fully informs the agent about what the tool does and its behavior. No gaps remain.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter with maxLength, minLength, and an example. The description does not add new details about the parameter's usage or format beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'explain' and the resource 'whether curated AirMCP workflows are ready in the active runtime', including specific elements like missing modules, add-ons, tools, and write opt-ins. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_workflow' or 'profile_status'.

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 checking workflow readiness before running workflows, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' or 'profile_status'. No exclusions or conditional guidance is provided.

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