mdan_run_workflow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description stays consistent by saying 'load' and 'return instructions.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the workflow comes with rules, a resume point, existing artifacts, and produces step-by-step instructions.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the most important behavioral nuance—returning instructions rather than executing them. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a constrained enum and a single optional topic, the description tells the agent what gets loaded, what is preserved, and what the tool returns. There is no output schema, but the main return value is described well enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 both name and topic are already documented at the parameter level. The main description does not add extra parameter details, but it does frame that the loaded workflow is associated with a topic; this meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a clear action—load an MDAN workflow with its rules and progress—and a specific deliverable: return step-by-step execution instructions. It clarifies that this is a preparation tool rather than an execution tool, which distinguishes it from the surrounding workflow and state tools.

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 overall purpose implies when to use it, and the schema's name parameter points to mdan_list_workflows for available workflow names. However, the description itself does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives or conditions for choosing a sibling tool.

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