get_workflow_report

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 discloses that the report is automatically written after every tool call, that this tool does not produce the file, and that save_to optionally copies the report to an additional path. This is strong disclosure of side effects and behavior, though it could also mention error handling or file permission requirements.

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 concise and well-structured. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and a clear 'WHEN TO USE' section follows with an organized bulleted list. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema available) and the rich context provided—purpose, usage guidelines, automatic file behavior, and side effects—the description is complete. It adequately covers all necessary aspects without needing to explain return values, as the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% (one optional save_to parameter with a detailed description). The tool description repeats the parameter's purpose ('Optionally copy the report to a different path via save_to') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a summary of all tool calls and LLM decisions made in this session.' This distinguishes it from siblings like reset_workflow_report, which implies resetting rather than retrieving.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly explains when to call this tool and when not to, noting that the report is auto-generated after every tool call. It lists concrete use cases (telling the user the report location, copying via save_to, reading the markdown string) and clarifies that producing the file is unnecessary.

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