run_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: memories are automatically loaded, and workflows can auto-route based on intent. This is useful, though it doesn't detail potential side effects or output behavior (which may be acceptable given the readOnly hint).

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 long but well-organized with clear headings, examples, and a negative usage section. Every section serves a purpose. It is slightly wordy but appropriately structured for a tool with many workflow options and routing rules.

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 description is thorough on usage, workflows, and exclusions, but it omits any mention of return values or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate for this lack. Without knowing what the tool returns (text, steps, or a status), an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior, leaving a notable gap.

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% for both parameters, but the description adds significant semantic value by listing valid workflow names, providing concrete examples of input and workflow values, and explaining the auto-routing behavior when the workflow parameter is omitted. This goes well beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Run a Purmemo workflow — structured, memory-powered processes' and distinguishes it from sibling tools by listing what NOT to use it for (e.g., recall_memories, save_conversation, discover_related_conversations). The available workflow list further clarifies its scope.

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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE THIS TOOL' section with concrete scenarios and a 'DO NOT use this tool for' section naming alternative tools. It also explains auto-routing when no workflow is specified, giving clear guidance on when to call and when to avoid.

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