vro_get_workflow

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the lookup is exact-match and that returned data includes typed inputs/outputs, but says nothing about failure modes when the name is ambiguous or not found, nor about the large-payload risk that the schema mentions for includeContent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the payload fields, then the lookup key. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and how identifiers are resolved, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on ambiguous/missing names or the exclusion of full content by default.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces that 'workflow' accepts an id or exact name and says nothing extra about includeContent beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Get'), resource ('a workflow'), and enumerates the returned fields (inputs/outputs names + types, version, description). This clearly separates it from vro_find_workflows (search) and vro_save_workflow (mutation).

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 phrase 'by id or exact name' signals this is a precise-identifier lookup rather than a search, which implicitly routes agents away from vro_find_workflows. However, it never names the alternative or states an exclusion explicitly, so usage context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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