Get a workflow

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the leading 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The description still adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the shape of the returned payload (params, items source, steps, targets), which the agent needs to know before calling.

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 compact sentences, safety hint front-loaded, and the payload enumeration and precondition packed into the second. No wasted words, though the 'Read-only.' fragment duplicates the annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates returned fields and gives the pre-run_start prerequisite. It omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown workflow name), which is a minor gap for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description is the only place meaning could be added. It never states that 'name' is the workflow identifier, though the phrase 'a saved workflow' implies it weakly; a single obvious param keeps this near baseline rather than a failure.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('a saved workflow in full') and enumerates what is retrieved (params, items source, steps, targets), which separates it from the sibling workflow_list. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It routes usage by stating the read is for obtaining params so the caller can 'ask the user for missing required ones before run_start' — a clear precondition tied to a named sibling. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with workflow_list, but the context is concrete.

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