Read a workflow plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that the call is free (no quota/cost) and clarifies the semantic boundary that the document is intent, not a delivered video or creative acceptance. That boundary is real added value, though return-shape details like pagination or freshness are absent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the cost/safety note, then the semantic boundary. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly (plan, revision, content digest, readiness issues, warnings). It is close to complete for a single-parameter read; only the parameter's semantics and behavior on error are missing.

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 0% and the single plan_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no added meaning about the expected wfp_ prefix format, ownership scoping, or what happens when the plan_id is unknown. The schema pattern is the only guidance available.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the current account-owned plan') and enumerates what the payload contains (revision, content digest, readiness issues, warnings). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_workflow, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Free and read-only' implies this is the cheap inspection call to use before spending on quote/approve steps, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs get_workflow, no prerequisites, and no stated alternatives.

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