Get workflow version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the response includes both the full builder definition and a value-light projection, which is useful for understanding what the tool returns. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and content, the second gives clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or padding.

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, read-only get operation with two fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential context: return content, the distinction from get_workflow, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of the two projections.

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%, with both workflow_id and version clearly described in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly defined resource ('one exact workflow version') and lists what's included ('full builder definition with step parameter values and its value-light projection'). It also distinguishes this from the sibling get_workflow by referencing 'current_version', making its purpose 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?

The second sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use current_version from get_workflow unless you intentionally need an older version.' This directly names an alternative tool and provides a clear decision rule, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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