get-workflow-instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns step-by-step input, output, status, and error, which implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some value by specifying the return structure, but more transparency is needed.

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 description is two sentences long, with the first sentence defining the tool's purpose and the second providing a concrete use case. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by clearly stating what is returned ('step-by-step input, output, status, and error'). For a simple retrieval tool focused on a single instance, this is sufficient. The tool's complexity is low, and the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its return value and usage.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'workflowId' and 'instanceId' have descriptions). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain where to find these IDs or any constraints like formatting. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the description adds no extra value, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool retrieves 'full run details for a single workflow instance' including step-by-step input/output/status/error. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-workflow-instances' (which lists instances) and 'get-workflow' (which retrieves workflow definitions). The verb 'get' and resource 'workflow instance' are explicit and specific.

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 second sentence explicitly gives a usage scenario: 'Use this to debug failed runs (e.g., a Slack alert says "Workflow X failed at step Y").' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and implies it is not for listing all instances or retrieving workflow definitions, which are covered by siblings.

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