trawl_workflow_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication or specific pool permissions, or what happens with invalid workflow IDs.

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 filler. It states the core action and the information returned, earning every word.

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 tool with fully documented input parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It says it returns status and step progress, but it does not clarify status values, output shape, or whether progress includes step-level details.

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 both parameters and their meanings are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already provides, which is acceptable at the baseline for high coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get workflow status and step progress.' An agent can identify the tool as a read operation for a particular workflow, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like trawl_workflow_list or trawl_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the phrasing: check an existing workflow's status and step progress. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of trawl_workflow_list, trawl_workflow_update, or other status-related tools.

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