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 adds important context about argument formatting ('compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines'), which isn't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't describe what 'detailed information' includes, potential error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 and well-structured with only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third delivers critical formatting requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and usage. However, it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' the workflow contains, what format it returns, or address potential edge cases. Given the complexity of workflow systems and lack of structured output documentation, this leaves significant 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' as a parameter but doesn't explain what 'clientId' represents or provide any semantic context for either parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to fully address the schema coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('workflow by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-execution' or 'get-user' beyond mentioning 'workflow' specifically.

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 clear usage guidance by specifying when to use it ('Use after list-workflows to get detailed information about a specific workflow'), which helps the agent understand the sequencing. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for proper usage.

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