getWorkflow

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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: secrets are masked as `********`, and the revision is a precondition for edits. This is behavioral context the annotations do not convey, though return/pagination specifics are absent.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then the usage trigger, then the view tip, then the secret-masking note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does name the key fields (draft, status, revision). For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; minor gaps remain on error/not-found behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's note on `view=structure` (nodes and edges without config) largely restates what the schema already documents, adding little beyond the enum description.

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?

Specific verb (get) and resource (one workflow), and it enumerates what is returned: draft, status, and `revision`. This clearly separates it from listWorkflows (singular vs list), but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: 'Call it before every edit to get the current `revision`.' It also adds a conditional for `view=structure` on large workflows. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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