View Workflow Run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the response structure varies by workflow type (agent vs step-definition) and highlights specific fields like human-approval state. This goes beyond the basic read-only indication.

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: a front-loaded purpose statement, a compact enumeration of return fields for two workflow types, and a clear parameter instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation, the description doesn't need to fully enumerate return values but does a good job summarizing major categories. It covers the key behavior and parameter source, though it doesn't address error scenarios or polling behavior, which are minor gaps for a monitoring tool.

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 100% and the schema already thoroughly documents the run_id parameter (e.g., dynrun_…, source from POST /v1/runs or prior view_workflow_run call). The description just repeats 'Pass the run_id from POST /v1/runs' without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 verb 'Monitor' and the resource 'workflow run', and further specifies the detailed return contents for two workflow types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_workflow (which views a workflow definition) and list_workflow_runs (which lists runs).

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 provides clear context that this tool is for monitoring a specific workflow run, and instructs to pass the run_id from POST /v1/runs. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, the purpose and naming make the appropriate usage evident.

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