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. It states it returns the 'full' graph state with type information, indicating a comprehensive read operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or potential performance implications beyond the word 'full'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's core function in ten 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?

The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter getter tool, especially since an output schema exists. It covers what the tool does, but could benefit from a note on when to use it or prerequisites, though these are not essential given the low complexity.

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 already provides a clear description for the only parameter ('The workflow to inspect'), so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context about what is retrieved (full graph state with types) but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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') and the resource ('full workflow graph state with type information'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue, get_job_status, or get_node_schema, which target different resources.

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 its usage for retrieving a workflow graph but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or related tool references. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer applicability, but there is no proactive direction.

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