Get workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: that the payload is a complete graph and that its nodes reference each other by id, which is the reason the read must precede any edit. It does not mention permissions or any size/pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short labeled blocks (Purpose / Not for / Returns / Use when), front-loaded and scannable, with no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return as a complete workflow graph. Combined with the explicit sibling exclusion and the pre-edit usage rule, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no identifier format or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline at this coverage level.

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 and resource ('Fetch one workflow') plus the exact scope of what comes back: trigger, every step, and the transitions connecting them. This distinguishes it from plunk_list_workflows and from the execution-history sibling it explicitly names.

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?

Gives an explicit 'Not for' exclusion (run history -> plunk_list_workflow_executions) and an explicit 'Use when' condition ('Always, before editing a workflow'), with the reason: steps and transitions cross-reference by id, so the current graph is required to edit safely.

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