Get workflow details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with 'Authentication: Required' and by clarifying that the full contents/definition are returned rather than a summary.

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-loaded with the core statement, then short labeled sections. Every sentence is short and readable; the use-case bullets are mildly redundant with the opening sentence but not wasteful.

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 must indicate what comes back, and it does ('full contents/definition'). Auth requirement and scope are covered; the only missing piece is any note on error behavior for a missing workflow or owner.

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% and all three parameters are documented in-schema, including the non-obvious distinction that 'account' is a profile label rather than a provider owner ID. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow') and even names the payload scope ('full contents/definition'), which distinguishes it from list_workflows and create_workflow in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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' bullets (load for editing, view configuration, export) imply when the tool is relevant, but they are fairly generic and restate the purpose rather than giving decision criteria. No exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. list_workflows) are offered.

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