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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, and adds useful behavioral detail about the returned JSON string and content_sha256. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not discuss potential errors or edge cases.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps all additional details relevant and compact.

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 no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to identify the version, what is returned, and the latest-version behavior. It does not omit details needed for correct invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all 3 parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that slug or id can be used and that omitting version returns the latest, but it adds little new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read back') and resource ('workflow version'), and distinguishes by explaining the exact definition body plus content_sha256. It clearly identifies the lookup by slug or id and version behavior, differentiating it from general workflow getters.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving an exact workflow version definition for diffing, patching, or resubmitting, and explains version omission for the latest. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls slightly 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.