get_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds the specific subject being read—workflow definition and trigger details—but does not disclose additional behaviors like error conditions or permissions; the output schema covers return value expectations.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and names the object and timing. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what to read and when. It could be more complete by pointing to list_workflows as the source of workflow_id, but that is a minor gap given the schema already identifies the required parameter.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for workflow_id, and the tool description does not explain how to obtain it or confirm it is the UUID returned by list_workflows. The property name and uuid format are self-evident, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource, 'workflow definition and trigger details,' which distinguishes it from list_workflows and execute_workflow. The qualifier 'before execution' further clarifies that this is the pre-execution lookup tool.

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 phrase 'before execution' provides a clear timing cue, implying the agent should fetch this before calling execute_workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_workflows for enumeration, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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