workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions lazy loading and the workflow roles. It does not state whether loading is read-only, whether it mutates state, what auth or permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a workflow management tool.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct information: the tool's identity, its loading action, and the workflow roles. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the first sentence is somewhat broad and the roles sentence is not essential for invoking the tool.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and the types of items it loads, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps about how to use action/name/category together and what happens upon loading. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, listing item types (agents, skills, hooks, commands, scripts) that correspond to the action enum, but it does not explain how the parameters interact or that all are optional.

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 identifies the tool as a lazy-loading workflow manager for TDD components, specifying the verb 'Load' and the resources (agents, skills, hooks, commands, scripts, OJ policy). It also introduces a distinct five-role pipeline, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like 'agent' or 'docs', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when needing to load workflow components on demand to save tokens, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide any exclusions. The 'on demand' phrasing offers some context, but guidance remains implicit rather than clearly instructed.

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