get_workflow

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint by stating the response includes the full triggers and actions, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. It doesn't cover pagination or error cases, but the read-only annotation already covers safety, and the description adds return-content context.

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?

One sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. It earns every word.

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 read-only get-by-ID tool, the description covers the purpose, the included content, and the parameter meaning. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of triggers and actions gives the agent an idea of the return shape. Gaps like error handling are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 only defines 'id' as a number with no description. The description's 'by ID' clarifies that this parameter is the workflow identifier, effectively compensating for the 0% schema coverage. For a single required parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses the verb 'Get', specifies the resource 'one workflow by ID', and adds 'including its full triggers and actions', which distinguishes it from list_workflows (which lists all) and from get_workflow_action/get_workflow_trigger (which fetch single components).

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 makes the use case clear: retrieve a single workflow by its ID. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings like list_workflows and get_workflow_action implies when this is the right tool. No explicit guidance is given, but context is sufficient.

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