workflow_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies what information is returned (triggers, actions, enrollment criteria). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this operation has side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, then Args section with parameter explanation, then Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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 has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation in description), 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by explaining the parameter and return content. However, for a read operation with no annotation safety profile, it could benefit from explicitly stating this is a safe, non-destructive operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has title 'Workflow Id'), the description adds significant value by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('The workflow ID'). However, it doesn't provide format details, validation rules, or examples. For a single parameter tool with no schema documentation, this is good but not comprehensive.

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 'detailed information about a specific workflow', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like workflows_list (which lists multiple workflows) and workflow_create/update/delete (which modify workflows). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with workflow_get's closest sibling workflow_activate, which might share similar parameter structure.

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 when detailed information about a specific workflow is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like workflows_list (for listing) or workflow_activate (for activation). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided, though the required workflow_id parameter suggests you need to know the specific workflow identifier.

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