Get workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the subtle behavior of excludePinnedData (it only affects the upstream request and presence flags, but pinned values are withheld regardless) and the permission requirement. This is useful, non-obvious behavioral detail that annotations do not convey.

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 three dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then addresses usage, then a behavioral nuance. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 tool, this is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to specify the ID, the behavioral nuance of excludePinnedData, permission needs, and the alternative for version history. Since an output schema exists, return values are adequately documented elsewhere.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds practical context: workflowId is the stable ID returned by list/create (not a name or version), and excludePinnedData changes only the request and presence flags while output still withholds pinned data. These clarifications go beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get one current workflow for inspection or reviewed editing,' which clearly states the action (get), the resource (current workflow), and the singular scope (one). It distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_workflows_get_version by explicitly directing version history elsewhere, and from list tools by being a single-item retrieval.

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?

It explicitly names n8n_workflows_get_version as the alternative for history, and clarifies that workflowId is a stable ID from list/create, not a name or version ID—preventing misuse. It also states the permission requirement, giving the agent clear preconditions for when this tool is appropriate.

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