get_workflow_step_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool returns a processed, compact summary rather than raw history, and that it exposes resultUri for further log downloads. It does not discuss errors, pagination, or permissions, but these are minimal for a read-only getter.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, why it is useful, and a concrete use case. No filler or repetition beyond the intentional emphasis on resultUri.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the key return elements (resultUri, step names, durations, success status) and clearly situates the tool among history-focused siblings. It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the 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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning about how workflowId, runId, or region interact with the output, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processed step results from a workflow execution'), and lists concrete output fields (resultUri, step names, durations, success status). It also distinguishes itself from history tools by emphasizing it is a 'compact summary' rather than the 'full raw history'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for analyzing step outcomes and for retrieving resultUri to download logs. It implies a contrast with full-history alternatives but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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