get_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals the selection logic (returns editable draft if present, otherwise latest committed version) and implies read-only intent via 'retrieve'. It does not cover potential edge cases or side effects, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, immediately states the primary action and object, and includes critical selection logic without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the retrieval behavior and what is returned. It does not discuss error cases or authorization, but for a straightforward read of a workflow family, it is sufficiently complete.

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% and the schema already explains 'workflow_id' as family id, not version-row id. The tool description reinforces this by saying 'workflow family' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 (retrieve) and resource (workflow family) and explicitly notes it includes task definitions. It distinguishes from get_workflow_version by clarifying it operates on family id (not version-row id) and returns the draft or latest committed 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?

It provides clear context about the return behavior (draft preferred over committed version) but does not explicitly mention when to use this over sibling tools like get_workflow_version. The distinction is implicit via the family vs version concept, so there is no exclusion guidance, but the purpose is clear.

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