get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this tool 'Mirrors MCP Prompt content' for clients without Prompt support, and importantly clarifies that it only returns guidance text and does not execute the procedure, unlike the composite tools. This is valuable behavioral disclosure, though it does not describe output formatting or edge cases.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the important usage caveat and a concrete list-discovery hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only, idempotent retrieval tool with no required parameters and a complete input schema, this description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, how to discover workflows, and when to choose alternative tools. No output schema is present, but the return concept ('workflow guidance text') is clear from the description.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by giving example workflow names, explaining that list=true is the discovery mechanism, and framing arguments as 'template arguments' that feed the workflow text builder. This goes beyond the schema while a high-coverage schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('workflow guidance text'), and concrete examples ('incident_triage, rca_workflow, remediate_workflow'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the composite workflow tools ('triage, diagnose, health_check, capacity_plan, portal_overview'), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to prefer the composite workflow tools instead ('Prefer the composite workflow tools ... when they exist -- those execute the procedure') and gives a concrete usage directive for the list parameter ('Pass list=true to discover available workflows'). This is clear routing guidance with an alternative and a condition.

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