get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool returns 'raw JSON' and describes output format options ('api' vs 'ui'), but does not mention side effects, destructive behavior, authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The transparency is adequate but not explicit about behavioral traits.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, contrasting with a sibling, and specifying when to use. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (load a workflow, return JSON) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value by detailing the format options. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but the tool is straightforward. The sibling context is large, but the description distinguishes the most relevant alternative.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds value beyond it: it gives a filename example, explains the 'format' parameter's 'api' vs 'ui' options, and recommends using 'list_workflows' to see available files. This provides useful context that aids correct parameter use.

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 the action: 'Load a saved workflow and return its raw JSON.' It specifies the verb (load) and resource (workflow), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'analyze_workflow' by noting this tool returns raw JSON.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. 'analyze_workflow': use 'analyze_workflow' for understanding, use 'get_workflow' only when the actual JSON is needed for enqueue_workflow, modify_workflow, or save_workflow. This provides clear guidance on alternatives.

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