get_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' adequately signals non-mutating behavior, and specifying that it returns current nodes, links, and revision gives a snapshot-like expectation. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or any limitations, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and specifies the three key components returned (nodes, links, revision), making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient to guide invocation. It does not explain when to use the tool relative to siblings or provide parameter details, but the overall complexity is low and the return structure exists in the output schema.

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 has one parameter, canvas_id, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or provenance of canvas_id beyond the parameter name itself. Since the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, parameter understanding relies entirely on inference from the parameter name.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a canvas') and clearly identifies the exact content returned: current nodes, links, and revision. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_workflow or edit_workflow, which are write operations.

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 clearly implies use when the agent needs the current state of a canvas rather than modifying or submitting it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only framing provides adequate context for choosing this tool over its mutating siblings.

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