read_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the current draft and version, which is key behavioral context for a read operation. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a straightforward read, the transparency is adequate.

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: one for purpose, one for usage. Both are essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation. It mentions what is included (draft and version) and when to use it. A description of the return format would be helpful but is not strictly necessary.

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 input schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'The workflow's id.' The description merely says 'by id,' adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 'Read one workflow by id, including its current draft and version.' This specifies the exact resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_workflow_published' (which reads only the published version) and 'list_workflows' (which lists many).

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 sentence 'Read before you update — you need the current version.' explicitly advises when to use this tool—before an update—implying that update_workflow requires the current version. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools for other cases.

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