get_workflow_definition

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

Without annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits such as SKU-dependent parameter requirements and that it returns the full workflow definition JSON. It implicitly indicates a read operation, but could be more explicit about it being non-destructive and the nature 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential functional details: what it does, SKU-specific usage, and a pointer to the related modify tool. It lacks explicit error conditions or response format details, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already contain the same SKU condition for workflowName. The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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 action (Get the full workflow definition JSON) and the resource (Logic App workflow), distinguishing between Consumption and Standard SKUs. It immediately differentiates from sibling tools like clone_workflow or update_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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions for both SKU types (omit or include workflowName) and offers an alternative (use update_workflow to modify). This gives clear context for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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