invariance_workflow_get

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already provide: readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. It does not mention error behavior for missing keys, response shape, or anything else about side effects, so it contributes little transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes value for a tool this simple.

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, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is adequate. It says the operation returns a workflow definition, and the schema covers the key. It could mention error behavior or return structure, but the low complexity keeps the current text sufficient.

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?

The only parameter, `key`, is already fully described in the schema with a concrete example ('support.escalation'). The description adds no extra semantics, but the schema does not need compensation because coverage is 100%. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('workflow definition'), and a lookup method ('by workflow key'). It clearly distinguishes this from the workflow_list/create/update/delete siblings by emphasizing a single definition retrieval.

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 phrase 'one workflow definition by workflow key' makes it clear this is for retrieving a single workflow when the key is already known, versus listing all workflows. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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