Get workflow

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description focuses on higher-value behavior: versionNumber flips the response from the live draft to a frozen version plus previousVersion (null at version 1), and the updatedAt value is surfaced for a later mutation. That is real added context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary draft-read purpose front-loaded and the versioning detail following as the conditional case.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated; the description still flags the key fields (graph, metadata, updatedAt, previousVersion) and covers both call modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: versionNumber's response shape (frozen graph + previousVersion), and the downstream purpose of the returned updatedAt. The workflowId parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 one workflow's editable graph') and enriches it with the payload contents (nodes, edges, settings, metadata), then contrasts the draft read against the versioned read. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_workflow_versions and update_workflow.

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?

Explicitly names when to pass versionNumber (to inspect a deployed version and its predecessor) and points to list_workflow_versions for numbers, plus explains that the returned updatedAt is an input to update_workflow. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing context is concrete.

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