describe_workflow_execution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what information is returned, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or explain edge cases such as what happens when the workflow does not exist or when no run has occurred.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and lists useful output fields. The trailing 'and more' adds mild vagueness, but overall the description is concise and appropriately 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?

The description covers the main purpose and some return fields, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no distinction from sibling history tools, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent trying to choose among the related tools.

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%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get detailed information about a workflow execution,' followed by concrete data points like status, history length, start time, and close time. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the history-focused sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_workflow_execution_history or list_workflow_executions. It also doesn't mention that omitting runId returns the latest run or that region defaults to 'us'—those details are only in the schema, not in usage guidance.

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