get_agent_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — retrieval does not trigger background execution — which is useful, but it says nothing about the shape of the returned workflow, whether results are static/cached, or what happens on an unknown id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier comes last as a natural caveat. Slightly dense in its list of payload artifacts, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it does gesture at 'deliverables and relevant tools' but omits structure, size, or format. Annotations cover safety, so the main remaining gap is return-shape and enum guidance, making this minimally adequate.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter; the schema only supplies an enum of six kebab-case specialist names. The description adds no meaning about what these specialists are, how to choose among them, or that the id must be one of the enumerated values.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get an agent workflow) and enriches it with the payload contents ('deliverables and relevant tools') plus a scope qualifier ('without starting background execution'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_agent_workflows, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_agent_workflows (enumerate all workflows) or the execution-oriented siblings like build_motion_timeline or plan_storyboard. The 'without starting background execution' clause hints at a boundary but is framed as behavior, not selection guidance.

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