Retrieve a workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the underlying REST mapping (GET /workflows/{id}) and the API tag, which is mildly useful context but says nothing about auth requirements, 404/error behavior, or the shape of the returned workflow.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with the operation/tag metadata last. It does repeat the title verbatim in the first line before restating the same idea in the second, which is a minor redundancy but not wasteful enough to hurt usability.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with complete annotations and a fully documented schema, the description provides enough to invoke the call correctly; no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The one gap is that it doesn't distinguish the tool from the other workflow-retrieval 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 description coverage is 100% and the single required 'id' parameter is documented with a uuid format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes this with 'by its ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a workflow ... by its ID'), which is clear enough for an agent to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as immich_get_workflow_logs, immich_get_workflow_triggers, immich_get_workflow_for_share, or immich_search_workflows, so the differentiator has to be inferred from the name alone.

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 never states when to use this tool versus the sibling retrieval tools (logs, triggers, shared-workflow variants, search). The only implicit signal is 'by its ID', which hints at a prerequisite but is not framed as guidance or an exclusion.

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