vro_workflow_get_one

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and the word "definition," which mildly clarifies that this returns a definition rather than an execution record; it says nothing about error behavior for a bad workflowId or what the payload contains. Adequate but thin given annotations carry the load.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The second line (the REST path) is largely redundant with the annotation title, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

Three parameters, only one documented, no output schema, and the description does not explain return shape, whether `expand` changes the response, or how failures surface. For a definition-fetch tool whose value lies in what fields come back, this leaves real gaps.

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 only 33%: workflowId is marked "(path)" and the two optional parameters, expand and endpointConfigurationLink, have no descriptions anywhere. The description text provides zero parameter guidance, so the agent cannot tell what `expand` expands or whether endpointConfigurationLink scopes the lookup.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get a workflow definition") and the REST path reinforces it, so the agent knows this retrieves a single workflow by ID. However, nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like vro_workflow_get_aggregated_one or vro_workflow_get_all, and the word "definition" vs. a workflow *run* is only implicitly contrasted with vro_workflow_run_get_by_run_id.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives — no mention of when to prefer vro_workflow_get_all, vro_workflow_get_aggregated, or the run-oriented siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-item lookup.

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