Get workflow run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by describing what the returned record contains (steps taken, current position, next scheduled action), which tells the agent what to expect from the call.

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 labeled, front-loaded lines with no filler; each block (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) carries distinct information. Nothing extraneous.

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, so the description must gesture at return values — it does, describing the execution detail and summarizing the record. Both required UUIDs are clear. Slightly thin on the return shape for a detail-fetch tool, but 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 100% — both 'id' (Workflow UUID) and 'executionId' (Execution UUID) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the relationship between workflow id and execution id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch) and resource (one workflow execution) and enumerates the substance of the record: steps taken, current position, what is scheduled next. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (plunk_list_workflow_executions), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Not for' line pointing to plunk_list_workflow_executions and a 'Use when' line giving concrete diagnostic scenarios (a contact stuck, what they have already been sent). When, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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