archery_workflow_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions a permission requirement ('有权查看的') but does not disclose error behavior, authentication scope, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a query 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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is structurally efficient and easy to parse, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description can rely on those for return details. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage context, and with no annotations, it remains only minimally viable for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the workflow_id parameter, and the description does not explain it at all. Although the parameter name is transparent, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the specific verb '查询' (query) and clearly identifies the resource as 'SQL 工单审核或执行明细' (SQL workflow audit/execution details). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like archery_workflow_status and archery_list_workflows by focusing on detail retrieval for a single workflow. The mention of '有权查看的' (with permission to view) adds helpful scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archery_workflow_status or archery_list_workflows. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond permission, so the agent receives no context for tool selection.

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