workflows_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey—no mention of return format, errors, or any special conditions. It fails to leverage the opportunity to provide additional useful behavioral information.

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 extremely terse ('Get Workflow') but this is under-specification rather than concise communication. It repeats the essence of the tool name without adding useful information. A succinct but informative description is expected; this lacks substance.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only one optional parameter, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns and how to identify a specific workflow. It does neither—there is no workflow ID parameter, leaving ambiguity about whether it retrieves a single workflow or all workflows. Essential context is missing entirely.

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% and the single parameter (locationId) is fully documented with a default behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are provided.

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 'Get Workflow' states a verb and resource but provides no distinguishing details. It doesn't clarify which workflow is retrieved or what identifies it, and it doesn't differentiate from any sibling tools. Compared to a tautology like 'Process', it is slightly better, but it remains too vague to be reliably selected.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description gives no indication of scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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