get_workflow_events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait—that streaming is not incrementally surfaced and only the initial payload is returned—which prevents an agent from expecting a live stream. It says nothing about permissions, whether the call is read-only, behaviour for an unknown/expired job ID, or error modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the caveat that matters most. The parenthetical version note is the only arguable filler and it is cheap.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gotcha (non-incremental, initial payload only). It leaves minor gaps—no mention of what the payload contains or how failures on a stale job ID behave—but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents job_id. The description only restates 'by job ID' and adds no format, source, or validity information beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: re-attach to a workflow job event stream, scoped by job ID. That distinguishes it from the neighbouring event tools (get_flow_events, get_extension_events, get_webhook_events) by naming 'workflow job' specifically, but no sibling is called out explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Re-attach' and 'by job ID' imply the tool is used when a job already exists and the caller wants to resume watching it, which is meaningful context. However, it never says how to obtain a job ID (e.g. from a prior run_workflow/list_pending_workflows call), nor when to prefer this over get_workflow_result, stop_workflow, or resuming via resume_workflow.

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