get_workflow_status

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says 'Gets the current status' but does not mention that the tool by default returns a limited number (limit default 10) or that 'all active workflows' may be constrained by this limit. It also does not mention the inclusion of historical data via 'include_history', the return format, or side effects. This under-disclosure could mislead an agent about the tool's default behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the primary function. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is slightly too sparse, missing key details about the 'active' vs 'historical' scope, but this is more of a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 and no annotations, the description needed to provide more context about return values, default behavior, and the meaning of 'active' versus 'history'. The description does not explain what the tool returns in terms of structure, nor does it clarify the relationship between 'active workflows' and the 'limit' parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'include_history' having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No further elaboration is needed.

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 gets the current status of workflows and lists what it includes (phase, steps, progress). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'worktree_status' or 'get_test_results'. However, there is slight ambiguity since the description says 'active workflows' while the schema mentions 'historical workflows' and an option to include history, so the scope is not perfectly aligned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'worktree_status' or 'get_test_results'. There are no explicit use cases, preconditions, or exclusions. The only implied context is that it's for workflow status, but sibling differentiation is absent.

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