run_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the tool determines workflows and formats inputs, hinting at automation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool that likely performs mutations (running workflows), this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 clear opening sentence, bullet points for steps, and separate Args/Returns sections. It's appropriately sized without fluff, though the bullet points could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but minor tightening could improve efficiency.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return values, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and doesn't fully explain parameter semantics or usage context. The output schema reduces burden, but more context is needed for a complex execution tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters (project, domain, name, inputs) in the Args section and explains 'inputs' as a dictionary matching the workflow function signature, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail what 'project' or 'domain' represent or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Run a workflow with natural language' and explains it determines, formats, and invokes workflows based on prompt and inputs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_execution' or 'list_workflows' by focusing on execution rather than retrieval or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'run_task', which might be a similar execution tool.

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 usage when needing to execute a workflow with natural language inputs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'run_task' or other siblings. It mentions determining the workflow based on prompt, which suggests context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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