get_workflow_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return format (JSON string) and pagination parameters, but does not state read-only nature, potential side effects, or any prerequisites. This is minimal for a tool likely performing a read operation.

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 very concise, using a clean structure with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly lists parameters.

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 tool is simple (list with pagination) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return fields. However, it does not describe what a 'workflow status' is or any filtering capabilities beyond pagination. It is minimally complete but leaves some ambiguity about the data's nature.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters clearly: limit (max number, default 50) and offset (skip for pagination, default 0). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 the tool retrieves workflow statuses for pipeline stage analysis. The verb 'Get' and resource 'workflow statuses' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on candidates, companies, contacts, jobs, etc.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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