Workflows: step get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by detailing the exact fields returned and by disclosing the destructive-replace behavior of the downstream update tool, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second delivers the usage advisory. No filler and every clause 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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, largely compensating for that gap and making the tool sufficient to call correctly. Minor omissions (permissions, error behavior) keep it just short of full completeness.

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%, so both parameters (workflow_id, step_id) are already documented, including the pointer to workflows_list. The description's mention of 'its full parameters' refers to returned step config rather than input params, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') plus resource ('step details') and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, action, enabled and start-step flags, on_success/on_failure step ids, and full parameters. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling workflows_step_update, making it distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Read it before workflows_step_update, because params passed there replace the step's parameters as a whole,' which is a concrete when-to-use directive with a stated reason. It does not, however, cover when-not-to-call or contrast with siblings like workflows_get.

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