workflow_collect_partial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it collects results and does not wait for all workers to complete. This is consistent and adds value beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral trait (not waiting for all). Every word earns its place.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core behavior, but could benefit from a brief note on the return format. However, sibling tools provide context, making it sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the only parameter ('onlySuccessful') with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 collects results from completed workers without waiting for all to finish. It uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('completed workers'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'workflow_collect' which likely waits for all.

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 specifies when to use this tool ('without waiting for all to finish'), implying it is for partial results. It hints at an alternative (workflow_collect), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives. Still provides clear usage context.

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