Workflows: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes both workflow details and steps, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid ID or what 'details' comprises.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is close to adequate. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against workflows_list and workflows_step_get, and the lack of an output schema makes the thin 'details and steps' phrasing less informative than it could be.

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?

There is a single 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier's origin or format, making the baseline 3 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?

States a clear verb+resource (get a workflow) and adds that steps are included, but 'details' is vague and no sibling is named. With workflows_list and workflows_step_get in the set, an agent could reasonably wonder whether this overlaps with those, and the description does nothing to resolve that.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as workflows_list for enumeration or workflows_step_get for a single step. The agent must infer routing purely from the name.

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