github_actions_get_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens when the workflow is not found, whether it returns full details or a summary, or any constraints like authentication scopes. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise (3 words). While brevity is positive, it lacks necessary detail to be useful for an agent. It is not structured with context, front-loading is irrelevant because it has no substantive 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no description of return value or behavior. The agent cannot determine what information is retrieved or how to use the result. For a simple getter, more context (e.g., 'Returns a workflow object with metadata') is expected.

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 baseline is 3. However, schema descriptions are just parameter names (owner, repo, workflow_id) with no added semantics. The description does not explain that workflow_id can be an ID or filename, so it adds no value 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 'Get a workflow' restates the tool name with minimal addition. It indicates the action and resource but does not differentiate from siblings like github_actions_get_workflow_run or github_actions_get_workflow_usage, leaving ambiguity about what 'workflow' means in this context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_get_workflow_run for run details, github_actions_get_workflow_usage for usage stats). The agent receives no context for selection.

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