ds_get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly labels the operation as 'Read' (non-destructive) and elaborates on the compact mode's behavioral effect: returning only metadata/task summary and reducing token usage. It doesn't mention error behaviors, rate limits, or full response format, but for a simple read operation, key traits are disclosed.

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 well-structured docstring that front-loads the purpose and then uses an Args list for parameter details. Every sentence adds value, especially the detailed compact explanation which justifies its length. No fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at return values. It does: 'DAG, global params, node coordinates, etc.' and explains compact output as 'metadata and task summary'. The tool is low-complexity with 3 simple params, and the description covers the essential usage and output scope, leaving little ambiguity.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, so the description fully compensates. It explains each argument: project_name, workflow_code (with its provenance), and compact (with its default and behavioral impact). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 starts with 'Read a single workflow definition', which is a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('single workflow definition') with clear scope. It also lists the components (DAG, global params, node coordinates) and distinguishes from siblings like ds_list_workflows (plural) and ds_get_task_detail (task-level vs workflow-level).

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 says workflow_code comes 'from ds_list_workflows', which implies a prerequisite workflow and points to the list tool for discovery. It also explains when to use compact mode ('when you only need to understand DAG structure'), giving clear context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is more than sufficient for this read tool.

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