workflow.machine.status

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. The one-line description only states the action and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, side effects, required permissions, or return format. This is a critical gap for a status 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 only one short sentence, which is under-specified for the tool's complexity (2 parameters, many siblings). It lacks structure and does not earn its place; it is not appropriately informative for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, many sibling workflow tools), the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no information about the output, return values, or how the status relates to other workflow tools. The agent receives no actionable context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameters. The two parameters ('session_id', 'workflow_name') are unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to help the agent understand what values to provide or their roles.

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 'Get workflow machine status' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (workflow machine status), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'workflow.machine.control' which implies control vs status. However, it could be more specific about what 'status' entails, but it's not a tautology.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'workflow.describe' or 'workflow.list'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description is silent on usage context.

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