ms_get_workflow

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

The description details what the tool returns: ordered steps with operation IDs, interpretation guidance, and common mistakes. This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which only indicates safety.

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 (4 lines), front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear Args section for parameter documentation. No superfluous content.

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 with an output schema, the description fully explains the return content and references the sibling list tool for parameter qualification. It is complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage for the 'name' parameter, the description compensates by explaining it is a 'workflow name (see {svc}_list_workflows)'. This provides meaningful guidance on how to supply the parameter.

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 tool returns 'the full plan for one workflow: ordered steps, interpretation guidance, and common mistakes.' It distinguishes from the sibling ms_list_workflows by focusing on a single workflow's detailed plan.

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 implicitly advises using ms_list_workflows first to obtain valid workflow names (see the 'Args' reference). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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