Get workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add context by specifying that the workflow includes Steps and Job attempts, which clarifies the returned data. Since the description aligns with the annotations and provides a bit of extra behavioral detail, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key details (Steps, Job attempts) without wasted words.

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 low complexity (single parameter), the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered there), and annotations that declare safety, the description is largely adequate. It adds value by specifying the composition of the workflow (Steps and Job attempts). The missing usage guidance is a gap, but for a straightforward getter this is not critical.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, workflow_id. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond its existence. While the ID parameter is self-explanatory for a get-by-id tool, the description should ideally mention that the workflow_id identifies the target workflow. It does not add value beyond the schema's minimal 'Workflow Id' label.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'durable Workflow with its Steps and Job attempts.' It identifies what the tool returns, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job or get_codex_job that fetch different entities. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job or get_codex_job. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and resource type.

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