get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it returns 'a named workflow recipe with step-by-step instructions' but doesn't disclose whether the workflow is read-only, what happens if the workflow_id doesn't exist, how large the response is, or whether there are UI/automation side effects. For a getter with zero annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the action and the nature of the return value without fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource. Slightly more could be added, but for a one-parameter getter it's compact and waste-free.

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 single-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is fairly complete. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description is the only source for return-value semantics; it states the output is step-by-step instructions, which handles the main gap. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is adequate but not rich.

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% and the single required parameter workflow_id already includes rich examples of valid identifiers in its schema description. The tool description itself adds 'named workflow recipe' context about the resource type, which slightly complements the schema but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear purpose: retrieves a named workflow recipe with step-by-step automation instructions. The verb 'get' + resource 'workflow' is specific, and the phrase 'named workflow recipe with step-by-step instructions for automation' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_field or get_page, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 implies this is for retrieving a pre-defined workflow recipe for automation, which is reasonably clear. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or alternatives named. Among the many 'get_*' siblings, nothing helps the agent disambiguate when to pick this over comparable getters.

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