Get workflow version

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that a missing endpoint and a pruned version share an ambiguous 404 outcome, that history-read permission is required, and that the response contains validated nodes and connections subject to retention. This adds substantial 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 concisely written with six short sentences, each adding essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or redundant statements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description fully compensates by covering permissions, edge-case error behavior, ID relationships, and alternatives. It is complete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, the description adds crucial semantic meaning by clarifying the distinct roles of workflowId vs versionId and explicitly instructing not to swap them or pass a workflow name. This goes beyond the schema to prevent common misuse.

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 the tool gets one retained workflow snapshot, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools n8n_workflows_get (current state) and n8n_workflows_diff (comparison).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use n8n_workflows_get for current state or n8n_workflows_diff for comparison.' It also warns against swapping IDs or passing a workflow name, and states the permission requirement.

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