get_workflow_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the returned data: steps, audit log, and diff report, which clarifies the behavioral scope beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary with '[READ]', followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the Args section could be integrated more naturally. Overall, it is well-organized and not verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what it returns (full workflow state with steps, audit log, diff report). It lacks some context about the format of the diff report, but for a read operation, it is generally complete.

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 description provides a brief explanation for the single parameter 'workflow_id' ('The workflow ID to query.'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only gives title and type. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not offer additional details like format or constraints.

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 it gets the current workflow state, diff report, and audit log, starting with '[READ]'. The verb 'get' and the resource 'workflow status' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'review_workflow', which might also retrieve workflow information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or situations where other tools would be better suited. The description only states what the tool does.

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