get_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returning raw JSON and format options but does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential size, or any side effects. Although it implies a read operation, explicit disclosure is missing.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence is essential and no fluff.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return type (raw JSON) and format options. It covers usage context and prerequisites. However, could mention potential size implications but still complete for the tool's apparent use case.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining filename's prerequisite ('Use list_workflows to see available files') and detailing format differences ('ui' vs 'api'), going beyond the schema alone.

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 'Load a saved workflow and return its raw JSON.' It uses specific verb (load), resource (saved workflow), and output (raw JSON), and distinguishes from sibling analyze_workflow by highlighting the difference in output format.

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 when to use analyze_workflow ('if you just need to understand the workflow') vs get_workflow ('only when you need the actual JSON for enqueue_workflow, modify_workflow, or save_workflow'), providing 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.