workflow_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns the current state plus the action to take next, enumerates all four possible states with their conditions, and identifies legacy migration triggers. This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the critical usage instruction and uses a structured, scannable list for states. Every sentence earns its place; 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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description supplies invocation timing, parameter semantics, state enumeration, and follow-up actions. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 parameter, project_dir, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates: 'Project directory to check. Defaults to working directory.' This adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Detect the product-delivery state of a project.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by marking itself as the entry point to call FIRST and by routing to tools like workflow_setup, workflow_init, and workflow_status based on detected state.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('Call this FIRST when entering a project') and maps each possible return state to the appropriate alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool instead of a sibling.

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