get_workflow

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

The description implies a read-only operation (load and return) and mentions the output is raw JSON. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose potential size or performance implications, but the basic behavior is clear.

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 concise and front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, providing when-to-use alternatives, and specifying usage scenarios. No extraneous text.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage alternatives, and parameter hints comprehensively. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds value by mentioning list_workflows to discover filenames and by clarifying the difference between ui and api format beyond the schema enum descriptions. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool loads a saved workflow and returns its raw JSON. It distinguishes from the sibling analyze_workflow, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using analyze_workflow when only understanding is needed and get_workflow when the actual JSON is required for other tools like enqueue_workflow, modify_workflow, or save_workflow. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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