get_workflow_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses long-polling behavior, timeout semantics, snapshot structure, and the special parked state for outsideWorkingHours, including that repeated calls return the same state. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits potential rate limits or side effects (e.g., whether polling consumes credits).

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 appropriately sized given the tool's polling behavior and edge case. It is front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, polling details, and exception. Sentences are information-dense but not padded, though the exception explanation could have been condensed slightly.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage flow, timeout handling, and special case. It does not describe the final success result's structure, but that is inherently workflow-dependent. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke and interpret responses 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 description coverage is 100%, with rich descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces that workflowId and operationName come from the original call and explains waitSeconds semantics (defaults, 0 for snapshot), but these are already in the schema. The description adds minimal new value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Check the current state of a previously started Linked API workflow.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on result retrieval rather than starting (e.g., execute_custom_workflow) or other operations.

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?

Provides clear usage context: call after starting a workflow, poll with waitSeconds, and re-call with same workflowId and operationName if timeout. It also covers the outsideWorkingHours exception. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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