get_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: it is a point-in-time snapshot that 'does not advance the workflow', and it decodes status semantics into next actions. That is exactly the kind of polling/idempotency context annotations cannot express.

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 the scoping '[READ]' marker and the primary action, then the guidance. The trailing 'Returns:' block largely restates the opening ('Full workflow state including steps, audit log, and diff report'), a small redundancy but not enough to hurt usability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return shape, and it does: snapshot semantics plus steps, audit log, and diff report. Combined with status-to-action guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('The workflow ID to query'), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about ID format or origin, which is the correct baseline when the schema already documents the parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Get current workflow state') and enumerates the payload (state, diff report, audit log). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_workflow, cancel_workflow, and approve, which are the mutation/transition counterparts.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('poll a workflow after run_workflow', 'find out why one stopped') and routes the agent to alternatives based on observed state: 'not_executed' steps are the caller's job, 'awaiting_approval' means call approve. That is when/when-not plus alternative routing in two sentences.

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