get_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it 'Returns a point-in-time snapshot and does not advance the workflow,' and it explains the semantic meaning of specific outcome values. This goes above and beyond the structured 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 moderately long but well-structured with a [READ] tag, usage context, outcome explanations, args, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded. It is concise relative to the amount of behavioral nuance it conveys.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: 'Full workflow state including steps, audit log, and diff report.' It also covers side effects (no advancement), outcome semantics, and references to related tools (run_workflow, approve), making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It says 'workflow_id: The workflow ID to query,' which is clear but essentially restates the schema title. For a single simple ID parameter, this is adequate but adds no extra depth like formats or examples.

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 '[READ] Get current workflow state, diff report, and audit log,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the polling/status tool after run_workflow, not a workflow creation or mutation 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 explicitly says 'Use this to poll a workflow after run_workflow and to find out why one stopped,' giving direct when-to-use guidance. It also provides conditional alternatives: 'awaiting_approval' means call approve, and 'dispatch_required' means perform pending steps yourself, clarifying when not to rely solely on this tool.

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