nexo_workflow_get

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Read', implying non-destructive but omits details like whether pagination applies, whether the tool has rate limits, or what 'full state' includes. The parameters suggest limits on steps/checkpoints, but this is not explained.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to convey necessary detail. It achieves efficiency at the cost of completeness, missing key information about parameters and use context.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, parameter effects, or how this tool fits among many workflow-related siblings. A helpful description would cover expected output and usage notes.

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 description adds no meaning to the three parameters (run_id, include_steps, checkpoint_limit). With 0% schema description coverage, the tool relies entirely on the description for parameter guidance, but it fails to explain any parameter's role or relationship to the 'full state'.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'full durable workflow state', making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'nexo_workflow_list' or 'nexo_workflow_open', which may have similar read behaviors. A more specific purpose (e.g., reading state of a single workflow by run_id) would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'nexo_workflow_list' or 'nexo_checkpoint_read' could serve overlapping queries, but the description does not exclude them or recommend this tool for specific contexts.

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