get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify what details are returned (status, steps, configuration), whether it throws if the workflow doesn't exist, or any auth requirements. Given a get operation, some context about return content would help.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place. Appropriate for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool.

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 simple single-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is arguably adequate. However, it lacks any mention of what 'details' entails, which for a workflow tool could be substantial (steps, config, state). The lack of sibling differentiation is a minor gap given the many workflow-related siblings.

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% for the single workflowId parameter, and the schema description 'ID of the workflow' is adequate. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the param is simple (a string ID) so minimal added value is needed.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Get details of a specific workflow'. It's distinct from sibling list_workflows (listing all) and start_workflow/pause_execution, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this vs list_workflows (to enumerate workflows) or manage_workflows (to modify). The context that this is a retrieval tool for a known workflowId is implied but never stated. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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