run_research_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool has side effects and that a dry-run-then-confirm protocol is required, which is valuable. However, it does not describe what side effects occur, what an 'exact ack' means in concrete terms, whether costs are incurred, or what state gets changed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely short, but that brevity is not appropriate for a complex 26-parameter tool with a workflow, confirmation protocol, and many model/provider options. While the sentence contains useful safety information, it lacks any structural organization and is under-specified rather than economically concise.

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 high complexity, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and a large sibling set, this description is far from complete. It provides almost no information about what the workflow does, what its key parameters control, what side effects to expect, or how it differs from similar workflow tools. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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% across 26 parameters, and the description adds essentially no meaning to the parameters. Terms like 'dry-run' and 'ack' vaguely relate to confirm and api_cost_ack, but no parameter is explained, mapped, or contextualized. The description fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation.

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 only labels the tool as a 'Side-effect workflow tool' and mentions a dry-run/confirmation procedure; it never states what the research workflow actually does, what inputs it consumes, or what output it produces. It is essentially a generic category label, restating the name without distinguishing it from the many run_* workflow siblings.

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?

It does provide some procedural guidance: run a dry-run first, and confirmed LLM steps require an exact ack. This implicitly tells an agent how to approach invocation safely, but it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_latest_episode_verified_research_report_workflow or run_corpus_episode_completion_workflow.

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