aras_get_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context: the workflow is automatically created and includes all activities, statuses, and assignments. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe side effects or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and output content; the motivational use cases earn their place. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 2-parameter getter, the description explains the output content and the key context that the workflow already exists. Without an output schema it could specify more structure or error cases, but it is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only echoes that activities and assignments are included (mapping to conAttivita) and gives no new format, edge-case, or dependency semantics 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 identifies the resource ('processo di workflow di un elemento') and the data returned (activities, status, assignees), and ties it to the user questions 'where is this change' and 'who is blocking it'. It is distinct from sibling lifecycle/history tools, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves'.

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?

It clearly frames when to use this tool: to answer workflow-progress and blocker questions. It also notes that Aras auto-instantiates the workflow, so there is no need to set it up. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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