get_workflow_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only restates the read action 'Get details' and offers no information about side effects, required permissions, response contents, or error behavior. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but no additional behavioral context is disclosed.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 getter with fully documented parameters, the core invocation path is clear. However, the tool lacks output schema, usage guidance, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right call and what to expect in the response.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters with simple descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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 and object: 'Get details of a workflow instance'. It clearly identifies the resource and what is returned, and is distinct from list_workflow_instances by implying a single-instance lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_workflow, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workflow or list_workflow_instances, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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