get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely restates the tool name without revealing any behavioral traits. It does not mention return format, permissions, possible errors, or whether it is read-only, so the agent gains no additional insight beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (three words) but is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no real information. While brevity is present, the content is under-specified and does not earn its place as a useful explanation.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply context about what 'workflow details' entails, potential variations, or usage notes. It provides none, leaving the agent without sufficient information for a tool that is simple but not self-explanatory.

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 has one parameter 'id' with a description 'ID of the resource', providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get workflow details' clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'workflow', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workflows (which lists) and get_workflow_step (which targets a step). The word 'details' is a bit vague, but the intent is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workflows or get_workflow_step. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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