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 return content (nodes, connections, settings) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or any required permissions. The name 'get' strongly implies safety, but explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds relevant output details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema (context indicates present), the description adequately covers the main return elements (nodes, connections, settings). No additional context seems necessary for correct agent use.

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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter 'workflow_id' with its description. The description's phrase 'berdasarkan ID' adds minimal value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (ambil/get), the resource (satu workflow berdasarkan ID), and the output (definisi workflow termasuk nodes, connections, dan pengaturan). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_workflows (which likely returns summaries) and activate/deactivate_workflow (which change state).

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?

While the description implies usage when you need full details by ID, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_workflows) or mention any prerequisites or limitations. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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