whodb_platform_workflow_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds two real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the response deliberately omits payload values, and the per-call workspace target does not mutate session/default state.

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, no filler, with the core read scope front-loaded and the targeting caveat second. Every clause carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the non-returned-payload caveat and the default-preserving targeting rule. Adding the sibling it contrasts with would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% and the workspace sub-fields (host/org/project) are fully documented there, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the workspace targeting intent ('without changing defaults') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one hosted WhoDB workflow plan plus its step status), which cleanly separates it from the list/apply workflow siblings by scope. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (e.g. whodb_platform_workflow_list) or the plan/recipe distinction, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explains how the workspace parameter targets a call but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to whodb_platform_workflow_list, whodb_platform_workflow_plan, or whodb_platform_workflow_apply. An agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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