kaiten_get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation. It does not mention error cases, permissions, or response details, but for a simple single-resource fetch the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description plus the input schema are sufficient for an agent to make the call. Slightly more context about what the returned workflow contains or what happens if the ID is invalid would make it fully complete.

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 100%, and the only parameter, workflow_id, is already documented as 'Workflow ID (UUID)'. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond reinforcing that the lookup is by ID, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('a specific company workflow') plus the selection mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kaiten_list_workflows, which retrieves multiple workflows.

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 phrase 'specific...by ID' makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a workflow UUID and need one workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as kaiten_list_workflows for retrieving all workflows, so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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