get_automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: 'Reads only; reading a workflow does not enrol anyone or trigger a step.' It also warns about inactive automations and notes the API key requirement, enriching the agent's understanding of side effects and state.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the return value, the second provides usage context, and the third covers safety and state. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (trigger, steps, settings, enrolment counts), when to use it, side-effect safety, and the inactive-state caveat. This is complete for a single-resource read tool with strong annotations.

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% and the single parameter automation_id is already documented as 'Automation ID (UUID)'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 tool's function: 'Get one automation workflow in full: its trigger, every step with its settings, and current enrolment counts.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing list_automations for listing and toggle_automation for start/pause, making its unique scope clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to understand exactly what an automation will do to contacts before activating it.' It also names alternatives: 'For the list of automations, use list_automations; to start or pause one, toggle_automation.' This fully addresses selection among sibling tools.

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