Get a workflow

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the dual fetch-vs-list behavior, but says nothing about failure modes (unknown workflow key) or what a returned workflow record contains.

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 short sentences with zero padding, front-loading what the tool returns before the call-mode instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers purpose and both call modes. The remaining gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no description of the returned structure beyond "ordered chain of agents."

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% and the single parameter is documented with an example key, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting the optional parameter, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 pairs a specific verb with a well-defined resource and even defines the resource ("a ready-made, ordered chain of agents for a common job"), so an agent knows what a workflow is without opening the schema. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like get_agent or recommend_agents, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

"Omit the name to list all workflows" gives a concrete mode-switch instruction that covers the two ways to call it. There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool rather than recommend_agents, build_prompt, or list_agents, and no mention of what happens with an unrecognized name.

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