get_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a read operation ('get') and hints at the return content, but it does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, though it at least implies a safe read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional details in the second. Both sentences are relevant and add value, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from return details, but it remains efficient.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return content, but it misses usage guidelines and behavioral details that would enhance completeness. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, which it only partially does.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workflow_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific workflow by ID.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('workflow'), and scope ('by ID'), and mentions the content returned ('workflow definition, default arguments, and schema how to run the workflow'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' or 'list_workflows', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'list_workflows' (for listing workflows) or 'get_workflow_run' (for run details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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