gh_get_workflow

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear, but the description doesn't disclose return format, pagination, potential errors, or any operational quirks. It merely restates that it gets details.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is appropriately sized and structured.

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 get operation with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance, which are important because the schema has no property descriptions. It doesn't fully paint the picture of what the tool does beyond the basic action.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is expected to compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not. The word 'specific' hints that workflow_id selects one workflow, but it doesn't clarify that workflow_id is the numeric ID, the role of owner/repo, or that the workflow must belong to the specified repo. The description provides no value beyond what the schema's property names already imply.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('specific GitHub Actions workflow'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from list-style tools like gh_list_workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative for listing workflows, so it misses the full sibling differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single workflow by ID and that gh_list_workflows should be used for all workflows. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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