get_workflow_status

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

Even though annotations already mark this as readOnly and idempotent, the description adds critical behavioral detail: 'Returns a point-in-time snapshot and does not advance the workflow.' It also explains the meaning of outcome values ('dispatch_required', 'awaiting_approval'), giving the agent a concrete understanding of what the tool actually provides and what side effects it lacks. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 and highly information-dense: an opening READ marker, purpose statement, usage guidance, behavioral disclaimer, and return summary. Not a word is wasted, and the key usage condition (polling after run_workflow) is front-loaded.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns (steps, audit log, diff report), why to call it (polling, diagnosing stops), and the relevant outcome semantics. It complements the annotation-heavy safety profile and gives actionable dispatch guidance without omitting anything necessary.

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?

The schema itself already documents the sole parameter workflow_id with 'The workflow ID to query.' The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond that; it references workflow_id indirectly through context but doesn't elaborate on its format, provenance, or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, this is exactly the baseline 3 case where no description compensation 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 opens with 'Get current workflow state, diff report, and audit log,' which names a specific verb ('get'), the resource ('workflow status'), and the constituent parts (state, diff, audit log). It further distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as a read-only polling action after run_workflow, clearly separating it from the many mutation tools like approve or cancel.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'poll a workflow after run_workflow' and to 'find out why one stopped.' It also provides conditional next actions based on outcome values (e.g., 'dispatch_required' means perform pending steps, 'awaiting_approval' means call approve), which implicitly names the alternative tools and routes the agent appropriately.

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