Get Workflow Preset (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON object and provides the API endpoint, which is helpful but not critical. It does not disclose pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters) or potential errors, but given the annotations, the bar is lower.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage, return type, API details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with full schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It includes the API version and endpoint, which is extra context. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of pagination behavior (page/per_page), but the schema covers that.

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 has 100% description coverage (all four parameters are described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get details of a specific workflow preset'), the resource ('workflow preset'), and the means of identification ('by its identifier'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_workflow_presets_company' and 'get_workflow_preset_project' by specifying a single preset retrieval with company context.

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 provides explicit usage instruction: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Workflows by its identifier.' It lists required parameters, which guides the agent on when to invoke. However, it does not mention when not to use (e.g., for listing or project-level presets) or provide alternatives, which would make it clearer.

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