n8n_get_workflow

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of what response fields to expect, whether any preconditions exist, or any other side effects. For a read-only getter this is a minor gap, but the description fails to add value beyond the structured annotation.

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 one short sentence that contains the essential information: what the tool does and the key selector. There is no filler or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

For a single-parameter getter with an annotation covering read-only behavior, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it would be helpful to clarify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., nodes, connections, settings). This vagueness leaves some ambiguity for an agent trying to understand the return value.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Workflow ID'. The tool description redundantly mentions 'by ID' but adds no new meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, this is a baseline score for a well-covered schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed information about a specific workflow by ID'). It conveys that this tool retrieves one workflow rather than a list, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflows. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, and 'detailed information' is somewhat vague.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'specific workflow by ID' weakly implies a use case, but the description never states that n8n_list_workflows or n8n_list_workflows_summary should be used for listing workflows, nor does it mention any exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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