Get workflow run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-trivial context that 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply', which the agent would not otherwise know, though it remains vague about exactly how scopes, locks, or credit consumption manifest.

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 fragments with no redundancy and the resource identified up front. It is lean, though the endpoint-path restatement does little work for an agent and the terse style borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a read tool with one undocumented parameter and no return-shape or scoping detail, the description is only minimally sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'uid' has no description beyond its pattern and length constraints. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 effectively restates the endpoint path 'GET /v5/workflow_runs/{uid}', from which the resource (a workflow run, retrieved by uid) can be inferred. However, it never articulates the purpose in prose and offers no differentiation from sibling tools like list_workflow_runs or get_workflow, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only hint is the bare label 'Read operation', which is already conveyed by the readOnlyHint annotation and does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to list_workflow_runs or get_workflow.

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