ym_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Return' wording is consistent with that read-only behavior; there is no contradiction. The description adds useful content-level detail about what the returned plan contains, but it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, errors, or rate limits. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact: two purposeful sentences plus a one-line args block. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause contributes information without restating schema or annotations.

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?

This is a single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It covers the tool's purpose, the nature of the returned plan, and how to source the parameter value. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema provides only 'name' with a type and no description, so 0% schema coverage leaves the parameter semantically empty. The description compensates by explaining that name is a workflow name and points to '{svc}_list_workflows' for valid values. For a single parameter, this is meaningful and sufficient guidance.

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 opens with 'Return the full plan for one workflow' – a specific verb, resource, and scope – then details the plan's contents: ordered steps, each naming a catalog operation_id and why, plus interpretation guidance and common mistakes. This clearly distinguishes it from listing workflows or fetching workflow data, even among many sibling tools.

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 only usage guidance is implicit in the parameter line: 'workflow name (see {svc}_list_workflows)', which suggests consulting list_workflows first for valid names. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is present but minimal.

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