Get Workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and that the response contains the workflow's definition. It doesn't discuss auth requirements or not-found behavior, but the 'Get' framing makes the non-mutating intent clear.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action, names the target resource, and adds the useful detail about what the definition includes. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema fields.

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, get-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what will be returned and covers the essential retrieval semantics without needing to enumerate error cases or return fields.

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?

Although the schema provides no descriptive text for workflow_id, the description explicitly says 'by ID', which clarifies the parameter's role. With only one required parameter, there is little room for ambiguity, though no ID format or example is 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a workflow'), and identifies the retrieval key ('by ID'). It also specifies the content scope ('nodes, connections, settings'), which distinguishes it from tools like get_execution or list_workflows.

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: call this tool when you need the full definition of a specific workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with get_execution or list_workflows, but the singular 'a workflow by ID' conveys the intended use case.

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