wb_get_workflow

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the returned content, such as ordered steps and common mistakes, but does not disclose things like auth requirements, error behavior, or rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple read-only getter, but not exceptional.

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 two dense sentences: the first states what is returned, the second documents the argument. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one required string parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool: it explains the return contents and tells the agent where to get the workflow name. No additional context 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 schema provides only a string 'name' with no description, so the 0% schema coverage means the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'name' is a workflow name and pointing to {svc}_list_workflows for valid values. This is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though no format or example is given.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full plan for one workflow' and enumerates the contents (ordered steps, operation_id, why, interpretation guidance, mistakes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_list_workflows, which list workflows rather than retrieve one plan.

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 implies the right usage context: use it when you need the full plan for a single workflow, not a list. The Args note 'see {svc}_list_workflows' tells the agent where to obtain a valid name. It could more explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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