memory_workflow_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral information. 'Get a saved workflow' signals a non-mutating retrieval of an already persisted workflow, but the description does not mention not-found behavior or confirm the absence of side effects.

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?

A single six-word sentence is front-loaded with the resource and lookup key, with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 one-parameter retrieval with an output schema already available, the description covers the essential call intent. Missing details like exact return shape and error behavior are either covered by the output schema or non-critical for a simple getter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place linking the lone 'name' parameter to its role. 'by name' identifies it as the workflow lookup key, but adds no constraints such as exact match or required format.

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?

States the verb 'Get', the resource type 'saved workflow', and the lookup mechanism 'by name'. This is precise enough to distinguish the tool from memory_workflow_list and memory_workflow_save.

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 phrasing 'by name' provides a clear retrieval context: use it when a specific saved workflow is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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