workflow.status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds a distinct behavioral promise: calling it will not re-trigger side effects, and it re-establishes visibility rather than advancing the run. That is useful context beyond the hints, though it stops short of describing what state is returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but its brevity tips into obscurity — the one clause it spends is on the reconnect scenario rather than the core operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits the basic identification of the operation, says nothing about the two required identifiers, and leaves the relationship to workflow.run/workspace.status unstated.

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 0% for two required parameters (run_id, workspace_id), and the description adds nothing to clarify them. The names are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a 1, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 never states the concrete action or resource — an agent must infer that this reads the state of a workflow run. 'Resume visibility' is evocative but ambiguous, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like workflow.run or workspace.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?

It supplies one usage condition — call it after a disconnect to regain visibility — which is a genuine hint about when this tool applies. It names no alternatives and gives no exclusions, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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