Get Workflow Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The sentence adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about missing-id behavior, error cases, or the fact that this hits an external API — so it contributes essentially nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-by-id tool, annotations cover safety, an output schema covers the return value, and the input schema is fully documented, so the description is nearly sufficient. Only the not-found/error behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that `id` fills `{id}` in the path and warns against using `workflow_task_id`. The description's 'by id' restates this without adding format details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (workflow_task) and adds the lookup key (by id), which separates it from list_workflow_tasks. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near neighbors like get_workflow or get_playbook_task.

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?

Single-record lookup by id implies when it's used, but the description never states the precondition (that you already have a task id) or when to prefer list_workflow_tasks instead. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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