get_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and 'without returning its inputs or outputs' is a useful behavioral boundary. It does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or other side-effect implications, though for a simple getter these gaps are moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the word 'scoped' is ambiguous and would benefit from a brief clarification.

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 one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It communicates the core purpose and an important output boundary, but it lacks guidance on the reference parameter and does not help the agent choose among the many workflow-related sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description does not explain 'workflow_run_ref', its format, or where to obtain it. The parameter name and title are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource ('Inspect a scoped workflow run') and adds a meaningful exclusion ('without returning its inputs or outputs'), so it is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, and 'scoped' is left vague, so it stops short of a top score.

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 this tool is for inspecting a workflow run rather than listing, triggering, or canceling one. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative for cases where inputs or outputs are needed.

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