run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'topological order,' but omits critical behaviors such as how data flows through edges, what happens on cycles or errors, whether it mutates state, and what the return value is. This is insufficient for a tool that orchestrates other tools.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope.

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?

Despite having a complex nested schema and no output schema, the description does not explain how nodes reference tools, how ports map data, or what the result of execution looks like. It is under-specified for the complexity of the tool, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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% as both properties have descriptions ('Workflow nodes' and 'Connections between node ports'), so the schema carries the baseline. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond that, simply echoing nodes and edges. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema 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 that the tool runs a connected workflow of tools in topological order, distinguishing it from individual tool-calling siblings. It specifies the action (run), resource (workflow of tools), and scope (nodes + edges, topological order). However, it does not fully elaborate on what 'connected' entails, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_tool. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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