get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool reads and parses, but does not disclose read-only nature, error behavior (e.g., missing file), or whether it accesses local/remote storage.

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 concise with a one-line summary followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, though additional context could be added without significant bloat.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks context on error handling, read-only behavior, and potential side effects, making it only partially complete.

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%. The description adds 'Path to the YAML workflow file' to the parameter 'yaml_path', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, but the parameter is simple and no additional constraints or formats are 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 clearly states the verb ('Read and parse') and resource ('workflow YAML file') and outcome ('returning its full structure'). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_workflow or create_workflow.

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 usage when needing the full structure of a specific workflow file, but provides no exclusions or alternative tools. It does not explicitly say when not to use it vs other workflow tools.

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