aap_get_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating the return format (JSON string with status, elapsed time, and per-node results) and explicitly noting it covers running or completed jobs, which is useful behavioral context 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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is useful, and there is no redundant elaboration.

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 read-only status tool with one parameter, the description covers what it does, what input it needs, and what output to expect. It lacks details like possible error conditions or status values, but given the existence of an output schema and strong annotations, this is adequate and mostly complete.

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 description repeats the parameter name and type ('workflow_job_id (int): Workflow job ID') without adding meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself provides a more informative description ('Workflow job ID (from launch response)'). Since schema description coverage is indicated as 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 gets status of a running or completed workflow job including node results. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_get_job_output or aap_get_job_events.

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 use for checking workflow job status but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The purpose sentence makes the use case understandable, but no guidance is given about when not to use it or what other tools to prefer for different scenarios.

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