get_workflow

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds useful context about the response content (nodes, connections, settings), which is beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, auth needs, or rate limits, though the annotation lowers the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, followed by a concise list of included details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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-only get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource and lists the expected components (nodes, connections, settings). It could mention error cases or required permissions, but these are not essential for a basic retrieval tool.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'id' with description 'Workflow ID', and coverage is 100%. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action with a specific verb (Get) and resource (workflow), and further defines the scope via 'full details including nodes, connections, and settings'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflows, delete_workflow, and update_workflow.

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 usage for retrieving detailed workflow information but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_workflows or other alternatives. The phrase 'full details' suggests a contrast with listing, but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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