Get Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and side effects. The description adds that it returns text, but does not elaborate on error conditions, performance characteristics, or limits. With annotations present, the description provides minimal additional value beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single sentence of 15 words that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 the tool has two well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'workflow instructions' entail or how they differ from other prompt retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents both parameters (name and args) thoroughly. The description only mentions retrieval 'by name', which is already implied by the required name parameter. No additional semantic information is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 the resource 'registered MCP prompt', specifying the output as 'workflow instructions as text'. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_current_weather', it could be more explicit about the uniqueness of 'workflow instructions' compared to other retrieval tools.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'get_clipboard' or 'list_notes') would be more appropriate, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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