get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects. The focus is entirely on the return fields, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral 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?

The description is overly long due to a massive list of return fields, many of which are redundant given the output schema exists (context signal indicates output schema). The Args section also repeats schema information. While structured with Args/Returns, the verbosity makes it difficult to quickly extract key information, and it does not earn its length.

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?

The description thoroughly defines each return field, which is useful, but it misses critical contextual information like when to use this tool, potential error conditions, and safety profile. Given the output schema already documents return types, the description's extensive return field explanations add some value but leave usage and behavioral gaps.

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 input schema provides only names and types (0% schema description coverage). The description compensates by adding meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'Name of the DBOS application' and 'ID of the workflow to retrieve', which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema.

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 'Get details of a specific workflow from DBOS Conductor' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows by targeting a single workflow by ID.

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 usage for retrieving a single workflow's details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_workflows. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with other workflow-related tools.

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