get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; 'run nothing' reinforces that this is pure lookup and adds that no job is dispatched, which is meaningful next to execution siblings. It also signals the payload includes completion evidence and recovery guidance, useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about size or cost of the response.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the scoping clause ('run nothing') at the end. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing for a 10-value selector tool is any explanation of the workflow options or the intended call sequence (get recipe, then execute) — an agent must infer both.

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 0% for the single required 'workflow' parameter, and the description does not compensate: it never explains that the argument selects one of ten named workflows, nor what distinguishes e.g. 'inspect' from 'compare' or 'recover-job'. The enum values' self-describing names are the only guidance available.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get an ordered workflow recipe') with an enumeration of what the result contains. 'run nothing' distinguishes it from the many execution siblings (generate_motion, export_motion, execute_unreal_handoff), though it never names a sibling or explains how the recipe relates to them.

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?

'run nothing' is an implied usage rule: call this before executing a workflow rather than instead of it. But there is no explicit when/when-not, no statement that the returned recipe should drive subsequent calls to generation/export tools, and no guidance on which of the 10 workflow values to request.

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