workflow_status

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait, but the description does not state this explicitly or mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., an initialized workflow) or failure modes. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by a single parameter definition; no filler or repetition. The key behavior is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

The output schema covers return structure, and the one optional parameter is documented, so the description is close to adequate for a simple status read. It is incomplete mainly because the large sibling family and lack of usage guidance are not addressed, though that is partially captured by the usage-guidelines score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the only semantic explanation for project_dir and clarifies the default behavior ('Defaults to working directory'). It could add path-format details, but for a single optional parameter this is mostly sufficient.

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 names a specific action ('Get') on a clear resource ('current workflow state, work items, and recent events'), going well beyond a tautology. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 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 statement of when to use this tool over related workflow_check, workflow_item_list, or workflow_render. With 18 sibling tools, an agent is left to infer the decision boundary from names alone.

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