Show Workflow Activity History

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating it returns a JSON object, specifying required parameters, and giving the API endpoint and HTTP method. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, each conveying essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently includes required parameters, API info, and endpoint.

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 read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required parameters, and API details. It mentions returning a JSON object, which is adequate despite lacking exhaustive return structure. Annotations further support completeness.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description lists required parameters (id, workflow_instance_id, company_id) but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 gets information about a Workflow Activity History, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It mentions fetching full details of a specific workflow by identifier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workflow_activity_histories.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Workflows by its identifier,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, the implication is straightforward and sufficient for selection.

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