wrike_get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what the response contains, error behavior for non-existent IDs, or any other side effects, leaving the agent without expectations beyond the basic get operation.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff, which is appropriate for a simple getter. However, it forgoes the opportunity to include minimal context without becoming verbose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about the return value or error handling. It covers the core purpose but leaves the agent with uncertainties about expected outcomes.

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 schema already describes `workflowId` as 'Workflow ID (required)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'by ID', so it meets the baseline but does not compensate 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('workflow') with a clear identifier ('by ID'), making its purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `wrike_list_workflows` and `wrike_create_workflow` by indicating a single-resource lookup.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when the workflow ID is known and a specific workflow is needed, which separates it from listing tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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