get_queued_workflow

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses read-only nature and the limitation that it only works for pending items, not running jobs. Could mention error handling for invalid prompt_id.

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 sentences, zero redundancy. First sentence delivers purpose and scope; second adds a critical limitation. 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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and limitation. No output schema exists, so return format is not required but could be mentioned. Minor gaps in error behavior.

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 clear description of prompt_id. The tool description reinforces it must be a pending queue item but adds no new semantic depth 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the full workflow payload for a pending queue item by prompt_id, and explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_queue (list) and edit_queued_job (modify).

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?

Explicitly notes that it does not work for the currently running job, which guides when to avoid using it. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context and siblings provide sufficient direction.

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