n8n_get_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only that it gets details, providing no information about returns, side effects, error behavior, or required authentication beyond what the schema implies. This is thin for a tool in a complex ecosystem.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the essential purpose without waste, which is appropriate for this tool's simplicity.

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 too sparse given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools. It does not explain what 'detail' includes, list prerequisites, or clarify selection among similar tools. A simple read tool could benefit from mentioning return contents or when to choose it over list_workflows.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds the context that the workflow is fetched by ID, which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but adds no additional meaning for api_key or base_url. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3.

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 it retrieves (obtiene) the detail of a workflow by its ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflows (which lists all) and n8n_create_workflow (which creates).

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 a specific workflow ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a simple get-by-ID tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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