get_workflow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by explaining that status is derived from currentStepId → phase, which clarifies how the returned value is computed. But it does not disclose side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, whether the status is live-computed each call, or any rate/authorization caveats, leaving notable gaps for a read 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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and key output fields, then adds the derivation rule as a second concise sentence. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-style tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns and how the status is derived. Minor gap: it doesn't state that this is a safe read-only call (no annotations available) nor the meaning of the PENDING/IN_PROGRESS/COMPLETED statuses in relation to advance_step, so the agent might need to infer workflow context.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains requestId as 'ServiceRequest id'. The tool description adds no further meaning about this parameter (e.g., required-format, behavior if missing, or relationship to related entities), but it doesn't need to compensate for a schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the workflow state') tied to a clear domain object (request steps), enumerates the returned fields (current phase, current step, all requestSteps with status), and names the derivation rule. This is fully specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which concern services and request CRUD rather than workflow progress.

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?

It implies usage: call after a request exists, when you need workflow progress/status. It also signals a direct, simple lookup against sibling tools like update_request_status or advance_step. However, it provides no explicit when/not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. request must exist), and no alternatives mention, so it earns only the implied-usage score.

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