Get workflow details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — authentication is required — plus the fact that the full definition is returned, but says nothing about permissions scope, error behavior on missing workflows, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses short labeled sections for auth and use cases. Formatting is slightly heavier than necessary for such a simple tool, but every line is relevant and no sentence is filler.

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 correctly notes that full contents/definition are returned and flags the auth requirement. For a simple three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around failure modes or permission requirements.

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% with all three parameters documented, including the subtle 'account' label distinction, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow') and clarifies the payload includes full contents/definition, which distinguishes it from a bare metadata fetch. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (list_workflows), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Common Use Cases' list implies when to reach for this tool (editing, viewing config, exporting), which is helpful context. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — an agent is not told to use list_workflows to enumerate or create_workflow to make one, so guidance is 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.