workflow_status

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

The description adds a useful behavioral nuance ('derived') indicating the tool computes rather than returns raw stored state, and 'next safe action' suggests proactive analysis. Annotations already define the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. It does not disclose what happens when task_id is omitted, but the output schema may cover that.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key result fields. This is efficient, though it sacrifices completeness.

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?

While the read-only annotations and output schema reduce the burden, the description does not explain the optional task_id or differentiate from the closely related current_task sibling. An agent cannot tell when to use this tool instead of current_task without further information. The description is too thin for a tool that returns derived decision support.

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% and the description does not mention task_id at all. It neither explains the parameter's meaning nor the behavior when omitted (the parameter is optional). The description therefore fully fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specific verb ('Return') and the exact outputs: derived task phase, iteration limit, and next safe action. This clearly identifies the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling current_task. The title 'Read workflow status' reinforces the read operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose workflow_status over siblings such as current_task or test_summary. The description is silent on context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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