workflow_config

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 discloses the data sources ('.env and environment variables') and the useful provenance detail 'where they came from,' and 'Show/Returns' implies a read-only operation. It does not discuss precedence or side effects, but this is acceptable for a config inspection 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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, and a single line for the argument. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, default, and the nature of the returned data. It could add explicit sibling routing or error/edge-case behavior, but an agent has enough to call it 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 input schema provides only the parameter name and default with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The Args block compensates fully for the only parameter: 'project_dir: Project directory. Defaults to working directory.' This adds both meaning and default behavior beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it will 'Show the active configuration from .env and environment variables' and 'Returns all PRODUCT_DELIVERY_* settings.' This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_status or workflow_check even without naming alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are mentioned. The intended use can be inferred from the purpose—inspect the effective config—but the description does not state how this differs from related workflow inspection tools.

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