Get Workflow Health

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 describes what the tool returns but fails to state whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. No mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 two sentences: the first lists contents, the second provides use cases. No redundant or extraneous information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing metric categories, but it does not describe the structure or format of the report (e.g., JSON fields). Adequate but could be more explicit about the output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists metrics but does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. 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 precisely states the tool returns a combined health report for a specific workflow, listing concrete metrics (duration, success, MTTR, slowest/failed tests, flaky tests). It clearly distinguishes from siblings (get_bottlenecks, get_config, etc.) which focus on other aspects.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this to evaluate test splitting opportunities, flakiness, and overall reliability.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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