danceflow_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description extends this usefully by saying the response includes full text and source identity, and that procedures retain their runtime/input/permission requirements outside this call. It does not mention behavior for unknown names or lookup failures, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier source, followed by a single scoping caveat. No redundant restatement of the tool name 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?

With one parameter and an output schema present, the return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers sourcing, scope, and the non-execution guarantee. The only gap is disambiguating 'linked reference ID' against siblings like danceflow_read_reference.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains the value is a workflow name OR a linked reference ID obtained from danceflow_list_workflows or danceflow_search. That is meaningful added meaning, though it doesn't give format examples or say whether a linked ID and a plain name are distinguished syntactically.

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 and resource (read a workflow) plus the accepted identifier forms (workflow name or linked reference ID), and names the sibling tools that produce those identifiers. It also draws a clear boundary by stating the call does not execute procedures, which separates it from run-style siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the input comes from -- danceflow_list_workflows or danceflow_search -- which is real routing guidance. It also gives a negative case (this doesn't run procedures), but it doesn't contrast with danceflow_read_reference or danceflow_component for other reference types, leaving that distinction to inference.

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