GetWorkflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('获取' meaning 'get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or what happens if the workflow doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic intent.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'workflow details' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide necessary context about the operation's scope, output, or usage scenarios.

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%, with both parameters ('Id' and 'EnvType') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取工作流的详情' (Get workflow details) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'GetWorkflow' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'details' include or differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'GetWorkflowDefinition' or 'GetWorkflowInstance'. While it indicates a read operation, it lacks specificity about the resource scope or content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow ID), differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListWorkflows' or 'GetWorkflowDefinition', or specify appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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