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. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, handles errors, or returns specific data formats. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded in a single sentence, with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for effective use. While concise, it lacks the depth needed for a tool with no structured support, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies 'workflow_id' is required but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or source. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks depth, aligning with the baseline for adequate but incomplete 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_workflows' (plural) by focusing on a single workflow retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools (e.g., 'get_story').

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'fetch_workflows' for listing workflows, leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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