archery_workflow_status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description notes a permission requirement ('有权查看的') and the verb '查询' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or response format, which would be expected given the lack of annotations.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, permission constraint, and read-only nature. However, it lacks any guidance on typical usage scenarios or edge cases (e.g., how to obtain workflow_id), so it is 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?

The schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the workflow_id parameter. Although the schema's title 'Workflow Id' provides some context, the description adds no additional meaning, 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 clearly states the action ('查询' - query) and resource ('SQL 工单当前状态' - current status of SQL workflow). It specifies the scope as 'status' which is a distinct resource view, but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like archery_workflow_detail, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archery_workflow_detail. The phrase '有权查看的' implies a permission prerequisite, but it does not provide contextual guidance or exclusions.

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