get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get detailed information' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation rather than a mutation, and it names the returned content categories. However, it does not disclose behavior around missing IDs, permission requirements, response format, or whether the result includes resolved expressions or credentials. It is adequate for a simple read, but there are clear gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the scope of returned information compactly and clearly.

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 one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and the main categories of returned data. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly mentioning that it returns the full workflow object or that it is non-mutating, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% because the only parameter, 'id', has a description ('The workflow ID'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is nothing misleading, but also nothing extra.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a workflow'), and the scope of the detail ('nodes, connections, settings'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_workflows, which presumably returns a summary/collection, and from get_execution, which targets executions rather than workflows.

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 use when a caller needs full detail about a specific workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_workflows or when an alternative such as get_execution would be more appropriate. The usage context is present only by implication, not by explicit guidance or exclusions.

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