get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The mention of draft info adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-heavy environment with siblings like 'update_workflow'.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded with core functionality and add draft-related details without waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a basic read operation but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It covers what is returned but not how to interpret or use the results effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'workflowId'. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or constraints for the ID), meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow') with specific details about what is returned ('full details including all steps, context, metadata, and configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_workflows' (which likely lists workflows without details) and 'get_draft' (which focuses on drafts).

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?

The description implies usage by specifying what details are returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_draft' or 'list_workflows'. It mentions draft-related info, which hints at context but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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