get-workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or authorization needs. It is adequate but lacks explicit safety or idempotency statement.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the key action and resource, then adds helpful detail on parameter location.

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?

Given the simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter. However, it could improve by describing the return format or typical response content.

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 input schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), and the description reiterates the schema's guidance on finding the UUID. This adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations.

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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (workflow definition), and the specific contents (steps, triggers, conditions). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get-workflow-instance.

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 implies usage for fetching workflow definitions by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context of use.

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