get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (workflow name, source module, source code) but does not mention error behavior, auth requirements, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation. For a simple get, this is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 sentences: the first states the primary action and target, the second explains the prerequisite and return value. No filler, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the key input, how to obtain it, and what the response includes. It omits edge cases like not-found behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100% for the key parameter, but the description adds value by explaining the key is the workflow's primary key and advising to get it from list_workflows. This goes beyond the schema's property description, clarifying both meaning and acquisition of the parameter.

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 the full source code and metadata of a workflow by its primary key. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'full source code' and directing users to list_workflows first, which differentiates it from listing or executing 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 description gives clear context: use list_workflows first to find the key, then use this tool to retrieve details. It implies this is for fetching a specific workflow rather than listing all, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like execute_workflow.

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