validate_workflow_state_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (checks state, yields warnings) but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or describe the return format, error conditions, or side effects.

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 with a front-loaded purpose, a 'WHEN TO USE' list, and a workflow steps list. It is appropriately sized for the information provided, with no obvious redundancy or wasted sentences.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and workflow context. It could be enhanced by describing the response/warning format, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to reason about when and why to invoke it.

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 single parameter agent_id has 100% schema description coverage (stating it comes from register_agent()). The description adds workflow context that references register_agent(), but does not add extra semantics beyond the schema's own 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 explicitly states the tool 'validates your workflow state and provides warnings about missing steps', which is a specific verb+resource scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workflow_guidance_tool by focusing on validation and warnings rather than general guidance.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear contexts such as checking workflow progress, before ending a context, and when unsure of next steps. It gives solid usage guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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