circleci_get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds little beyond confirming single-workflow retrieval; it does not mention authentication requirements (beyond the api_key param), rate limits, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 zero waste: verb, resource, scope, and identifier method all in one line. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing important is buried.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it fetches and how it is identified. The only missing piece is explicit sibling routing guidance, which is minor given the clear name and scope.

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 100%, with both api_key and workflow_id explicitly documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces that the workflow is identified 'by ID' and adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Get details for a single CircleCI workflow') and explicitly scopes retrieval to an ID, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings such as circleci_list_workflows. It does not name the sibling alternative, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 word 'single' and the ID-based lookup imply that this is for fetching one known workflow rather than listing many. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus circleci_list_workflows or circleci_get_pipeline, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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