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 does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens if the workflow_id does not exist (error vs. null), whether a draft/active distinction applies, or what the response contains. For a retrieval tool with zero annotations this is a significant gap.

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?

Single short sentence, well front-loaded, with no waste. It is concise, but conciseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no structural information to organize.

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?

A retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters, and several closely-related siblings (get_workflow_by_name, list_workflows). The description leaves the agent without return-value expectations, ID sourcing, or error behavior, so completeness is inadequate for the context.

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?

Only one parameter (workflow_id), and schema coverage is 0% – the schema gives a type and minLength but no description. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description at least connects the tool to 'by ID'. With 0 params the baseline would be 4, but here one undocumented param with no format/source guidance keeps this at baseline-adequate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Gets a workflow') but the only qualifier is 'by ID', which is a vague differentiator. Siblings get_workflow_by_name and list_workflows exist, and the description does not explain how this differs from the by-name lookup or from listing. Purpose is understandable but not sharpened against siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no mention of the alternative get_workflow_by_name. The agent must infer that this tool is for ID-based retrieval while the by-name sibling exists, which is left unstated.

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