Get an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the return shape (planned items with their individual states), but says nothing about permissions, missing-id behavior, or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence covering scope and payload with no filler. Every clause earns 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does sketch the payload (planned items and their states), which is more than most getters offer. It is still thin on what an agent should do with a bad or unknown automationId, but it is adequate for a simple read tool whose safety profile is annotation-backed.

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%, so both workspaceId and automationId are fully documented in the schema, including the default for workspaceId. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

It states the resource (a single automation) and scope ('one automation in full'), clearly distinguishing this from the sibling list_automations. It also names what the response contains (planned items and their states). It lacks an explicit verb, but the get semantics are unambiguous from the name and phrasing.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this after list_automations to drill into a specific automation, nor when to prefer get_automation over list_automations. The only routing hint (the id comes from list_automations) lives in the schema, not the description.

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