run_workflow

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. It reveals that the tool executes a workflow in the server workspace, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, state changes, or error behavior—critical details for a 'run' operation.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and economically includes the workspace scope, achieving high information density with minimal words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves important execution semantics unexplained, such as what `inputs_json` does, how paths are resolved, and whether running a workflow causes irreversible side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that actually runs code.

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% and the description does not explain the purpose or format of the `path` and `inputs_json` parameters. The description never maps 'workflow file' to `path` or clarifies that `inputs_json` is a JSON string, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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 uses a strong verb ('Run') and names a specific resource ('ReadyAgents workflow file'), plus adds scope ('under the server workspace'). None of the sibling tools perform this action, so it is cleanly distinguished.

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 implies this tool is for executing workflow files and no sibling tool overlaps. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the context is clear but not fully guided.

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