工作流状态

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful context about workflow step progress, failure location, and final result, but it does not disclose behavior for unknown workflows, missing workflow IDs, or the response format.

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, efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it directly states the query result categories. It is structurally clean, though slightly too sparse to fully support the tool's missing parameter documentation.

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 two-parameter read-only query, the description is close to viable because it states the output values. It is not fully complete: no output schema exists, the parameters have no descriptions, and the description does not mention how the caller would link projectId/workflowId to an existing persisted workflow.

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 0%, so the free-text description should compensate by explaining projectId and workflowId and how to obtain them. It does not. The parameter names are suggestive but the description itself adds no semantic meaning beyond the input 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 uses a clear action verb (查询) and a concrete resource (持久化工作流), and it lists the exact information returned: step progress, failure location, and final result. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like cocos_workflow_plan or cocos_workflow_execute, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what status information is returned but gives no guidance about when to call this tool instead of alternatives, whether the workflow must already be running or completed, or what to do when no status is available. The agent is left to infer any usage context from the tool name.

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