Get Automation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the two modes (with id returns workflow, without id lists with filtering/pagination) and mentions pagination parameters. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 well-structured with bold headings (Purpose, Modes, When to use), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information. It is concise with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what is returned in each mode ('full automation details including the workflow definition'). It covers modes, parameters, and usage context well. It omits error handling or authentication details, but for a read-only tool with simple parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds the meaning of omitting vs providing 'id' (list vs detail mode), which is not explicitly stated in the schema but is critical for correct invocation. This semantic clarification exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific automation (with its workflow) or list all automations.' It distinguishes two modes (with/without id) and explicitly mentions the dual functionality, differentiating it from sibling tools like get-automation-runs. The purpose is specific and action-oriented.

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 'When to use' section provides explicit scenarios: user asks to show automations, inspect a specific workflow, or before update-automation to see current workflow. This gives clear context and implies an alternative (update-automation) but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other list/get tools.

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