get_active_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the return meaning. It does not disclose that this is a non-mutating read, what happens with an invalid or unknown workflow_id, or whether the result is a boolean vs status string.

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?

A single efficient, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness, leaving key context unstated.

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 trivial one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, stating what is returned is the minimum viable content. It omits return type/format and error behavior, which an agent would want for correct invocation.

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 single workflow_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning about it (identifier source, format, or behavior on missing values). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter name is largely self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('whether workflow is active'), so an agent knows it is a read of the active/inactive flag. It is somewhat distinguishable from set_workflow_active (mutating counterpart), but does not clarify how it differs from get_workflow, which likely also surfaces active status.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative. The description never tells an agent to prefer this over get_workflow or get_workflow_by_name when it only needs the active flag.

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