workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'lazy loading' to save tokens, which hints at efficient loading, but does not specify what happens on invocation (e.g., does it execute the workflow or just manage components?). The action parameter implying both listing and loading is not clarified. The behavioral description is insufficient.

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 concise at two sentences, covering the core idea of lazy loading and the five roles. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, but does not structure information for quick scanning of parameters or usage.

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 three parameters (two with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context to use the tool correctly. It omits how to start the workflow or the difference between listing and loading. The roles are mentioned but not connected to parameters, leaving the function ambiguous.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'loading on demand' and the five roles, but does not tie this directly to parameters like 'name' or 'action'. It provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 states it is a 'TDD agentic workflow with lazy loading' and mentions loading agents, skills, hooks, and commands, which gives a clear verb-resource pair. The mention of five roles (Intake, Planner, Implementer, Verifier, Releaser) provides some distinction from sibling tools like 'agent' or 'generate', but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when to invoke the workflow or how it differs from tools like 'agent' or 'init'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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