Get Workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states 'active' which adds a qualifier, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., what if no active workflow exists), or permissions. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence that is concise and to the point. There is no fluff or redundant content; it delivers the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter, there is no output schema and no explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., a workflow object, a name, or a list). The description also fails to address edge cases like no active workflow or multiple workflows. This is a significant gap for an agent.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter and already describes 'doctype' as 'DocType to get workflow for'. The tool description merely repeats the same context ('for a DocType') without adding extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'active workflow for a DocType'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_workflow, update_workflow, and get_document by focusing specifically on retrieving the active workflow.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to fetch a specific workflow definition) but does not explicitly mention any alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't say 'use this instead of get_document' or 'if you need the full document list, use get_documents', leaving usage guidance implicit.

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