run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a WRITE operation, creates a new execution, and requires specific token scope. However, it omits side effects, sync/async behavior, and what the return value (likely execution ID) looks like.

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?

Three sentences, each with a purpose: action, effect, requirements. No excess words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and requirements. However, it does not describe the return value (execution ID?) or whether the call is synchronous, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., UUID format, input structure). Baseline 3 applies since schema is 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 clearly states 'Trigger a run of a Dynatrace Automation workflow' using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is a WRITE operation that creates a new execution, contrasting with read (e.g., list_workflows), create, or delete tools.

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?

The description implicitly tells when to use (to run a workflow) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. It mentions requirements (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true, scope) but does not say when not to use or provide context relative to getting workflow executions or checking status.

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