gh_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it simply states the operation without any additional details (e.g., return format, authentication requirements, or error conditions). It does not contradict annotations, but it also fails to add value beyond them.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. There is no fluff or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has a simple purpose (get details by ID) and an output schema is present, so return format is covered. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that workflow_id can be either an internal ID or a file name (as per GitHub API), which is a meaningful nuance. Still, given the simplicity and existing structured data, the description is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any parameters or explain how owner, repo, and workflow_id are used. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 of a specific GitHub Actions workflow.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (details of a specific workflow), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from siblings like gh_list_workflows and gh_get_run (which gets run details).

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 usage when you have a specific workflow ID and need its details, as opposed to listing workflows. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use gh_list_workflows to list all workflows.' It provides clear context but no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool.

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