Diagnose a workflow's HTTP lane

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it discloses what the report contains, how task_id changes the output (run steps plus every request's status, sizes, and a response sample), and how to interpret a 200 with an empty feed versus genuinely 'no matches'. That interpretation guidance is real diagnostic value not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then diagnostic interpretation, so the ordering is sound and little is filler. The second sentence is very long and packs several ideas together, which costs some scannability, but the density is largely substantive rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and it does so thoroughly, including what a successful proof looks like and what the task_id run payload contains. The remaining gap is the unresolved workflow/workflow_id parameter pair, which an agent still has to guess about.

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 only 33% (task_id is the sole documented parameter), so the description carries extra burden. It explains task_id well, including what its presence changes, but says nothing to disambiguate 'workflow' (string) from 'workflow_id' (integer), leaving the weaker two-thirds of the surface unresolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Diagnose HTTP-lane readiness for a saved workflow.' It then enumerates exactly what it reports (browser-only dependencies, invalid actions/expressions, unsafe query params, proof vs eligibility, next repair action), which distinguishes it from siblings like writ_workflow_runs or writ_run_workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional usage: pass task_id after a representative run to confirm engine=http, no fallback, and RECORDS returned, and says to read the returned step/request answer data FIRST when a run returned nothing or failed. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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