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's real contribution is disclosing the shape of the returned document (steps, triggers, run times, linkage ids), which matters since there is no output schema. Minor gap: no pagination or size caveats, though for a single-record get those are largely irrelevant.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the chaining hint, then the alternative. No filler and nothing redundant except the trailing "Returns JSON", which is minor.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what it gets back, and it does so field by field. Combined with schema-documented input and readOnly annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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% with a single required integer id, and the schema itself already tells the agent to find it via workflows_list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get workflow details and steps) and enumerates the returned payload: triggers with last/next run, and each step's id, key, action, parameters, start-step flag and on_success/on_failure ids. This clearly separates it from siblings like workflows_list (enumeration) and workflows_export (id-free copy).

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?

Gives explicit routing: returned step ids feed workflows_step_update, workflows_step_link and workflows_step_delete, while workflows_export is named as the alternative when an id-free copy is wanted. The agent knows both what to do next and which sibling to prefer for a different need.

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