Get a Depot CI workflow

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: execution history is ordered oldest first, the response includes IDs for drilling in, and the tool explicitly does not explain failures or return logs.

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 structured with a clear front-loaded summary of what is returned, followed by when to use it, then what it does not do and which alternatives to choose. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool returns, where the input comes from, its limitations, and how it relates to sibling tools.

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%, so the single required parameter workflowId is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID comes from depot_list_ci_workflows or depot_get_ci_run, but adds no new format or syntax detail, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('one Depot CI workflow') and enumerates exactly what is returned: status/timing, parent run, execution history, and job→attempt tree with IDs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'workflow-level counterpart of depot_get_ci_run.'

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when you have a workflowId and want to see reruns and failed jobs/attempts. It also names alternatives and exclusion conditions: for root cause use depot_diagnose_ci_failure, for one job use depot_get_ci_job, for a whole run use depot_get_ci_run, and it clarifies it does not explain failures or return logs.

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