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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the IMPORTANT formatting requirement for arguments, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise with only two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance and a critical formatting requirement. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides good purpose and usage guidance, it lacks information about what 'detailed information' the tool returns, authentication requirements, error handling, and the semantics of the two required parameters. For a tool that presumably returns structured workflow data, this leaves too many gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'workflow by ID' which implies the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'clientId' represents or how these parameters relate. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from the parameter names themselves.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'workflow by ID', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-workflows' by focusing on a single workflow rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get-* tools like 'get-execution' or 'get-user' beyond the resource name.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use after list-workflows to get detailed information about a specific workflow.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list-workflows' tool, establishing a logical sequence of operations.

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