zadig_workflow_get

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 states only that a workflow detail is read and says nothing about the effect of include_raw (which defaults to true), whether project_key is needed for scoping, or what the returned detail contains. There is no contradiction with 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 only five words, making it brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is essentially no content beyond what the tool name itself conveys, so the single sentence does not earn its place by adding information.

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 tool with three parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate even though the output schema covers return values. The semantics of include_raw and project_key remain unexplained, leaving an agent to guess at optional behavior.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. An agent cannot determine what include_raw controls, what project_key scopes, or how workflow_name is used beyond being the required identifier.

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 ('one custom workflow detail'), clearly identifying a single-item read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workflow_list, workflow_create, and workflow_delete, though it does not explain what the 'detail' comprises.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zadig_workflow_list or zadig_workflow_diff. The only usage signal is the word 'one', which weakly implies single-item retrieval, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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