workflow_get

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

The description provides extensive behavioral detail beyond what annotations (none exist) and schema offer. It explains the default compact projection, field omissions, detailed size example (268,753 chars), and how agent rows are trimmed. It also clarifies that the compact view retains scalar data and excerpts results, and explains the relationship between planned_agent_count and dynamic_nodes. No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden.

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 informative but somewhat lengthy (over 600 characters). It front-loads the main purpose in the first line, which is good, but subsequent details about size examples and field interpretations could be more tightly organized. Some redundancy exists between the description and schema (e.g., mentioning 'compact' default), but the extra context is valuable enough to earn its place.

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 complexity (4 parameters including a view selector, boolean toggle, and size limit), the output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description provides robust context about behavior and edge cases (large runs, field projection logic). It explains how to interpret response fields like dynamic_nodes, which is not in the schema. However, it does not mention error handling or permission requirements.

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% (all 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds value by explaining how parameters like fields=compact work in practice (what gets trimmed, example sizes) and how include_agents relates to the compact view's projections. However, it does not describe the limit parameter's effect beyond what schema already states, but overall it deepens understanding significantly.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a workflow run's archive including totals, summary/result, and per-agent telemetry. It clearly distinguishes the 'compact' view from the full archive, though the sibling list includes workflow_list which lists runs, not retrieving their data, so there is no direct sibling confusion.

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 explains when to use the compact view versus the full archive, and discusses how to interpret planned_agent_count and dynamic_nodes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives in the sibling list, nor does it mention preconditions or fallback options.

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