get_workflow

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: default compact summary with action names/types/ordering, and a warning that includeActionDetails=true can produce very large responses. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default behavior, then the size warning and prerequisite. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains the return shape (summary of action names, types, ordering) and flags the large-response risk. It falls short only in not distinguishing this tool from sibling read tools like read_workflow_outline and read_workflow_step.

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 description largely repeats what the schema already states: workflowId comes from list_workflows, includeActionDetails defaults to false, and large responses are possible. It adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get a GoHighLevel workflow's structure including actions and triggers. This clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update workflow siblings, but it does not differentiate from other read-oriented siblings like read_workflow_outline or read_workflow_step, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 a useful prerequisite ('Call list_workflows first to find workflow IDs') and frames the default versus detailed mode. However, it does not say when to choose get_workflow over read_workflow_outline, read_workflow_step, or audit_workflow, leaving the agent to infer the right granularity.

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