run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers return values, background execution behavior (wait=False returns prompt_id immediately), output persistence via save_outputs, and nuanced VRAM handling in free_on_switch (defaults and conditions). It even explains why low free VRAM is normal, demonstrating deep transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized for a complex tool. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then gives a prerequisite, a seed tip, and a clear 'Args:' list. Every line adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters and significant behavioral nuances, the description covers all important aspects: purpose, parameters, return behavior, side effects, and monitoring via get_progress. The availability of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structures in detail, and the description still mentions the top-level return type.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the description explains every parameter in detail: name format, params with examples and raw key syntax, wait semantics, timeout, save_outputs conversion, and free_on_switch conditions/default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states 'Run a workflow and return the paths of the files it produced,' which uses a specific verb and resource while distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_workspace. It also mentions describe_workflow, reinforcing its role in the workflow run/inspect cycle.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call describe_workflow first' and 'Prefer this for anything slow' when deciding between wait=True and wait=False. It also warns against 'waiting blind,' which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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