Get workflow template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant. The one genuinely additive fact is that the response spans the template plus every published version, but nothing is said about version ordering, pagination, or behavior for archived/missing templates.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the safety profile trailing. Every clause earns its place.

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 get-by-id read whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. However, with no output schema, the description should have described the returned structure (template fields, version list shape) more than the single clause 'every published version'.

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 coverage is 50%: farm_id is documented in the schema (with its active-farm default) while template_id is undocumented in both places. The description's phrase 'farm-owned' loosely gestures at the farm scoping but adds no format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate at this borderline coverage.

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 ('Read') plus resource ('workflow template') with scope modifiers: a single farm-owned template plus every published version. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_workflow_templates, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope ('one ... template'). There is no statement of when to reach for this versus list_workflow_templates, get_workflow_preview, or commit_workflow, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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