nexo_workflow_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a read operation (non-destructive), it omits important details such as idempotency, required permissions, error handling for missing run_id, or any side effects. This is insufficient for confident invocation.

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, grammatically complete sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It contains no fluff, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify the return format, pagination behavior, or what occurs when parameters are omitted. For a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, more detail is needed to ensure correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description does not explain the purpose of the three parameters (run_id, include_steps, checkpoint_limit) beyond vague implication. The mention of 'shared_state, recent actors, and replayable checkpoints' provides context for what is returned but does not clarify how parameters control the output.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full durable workflow state'), and enumerates the contents (shared_state, recent actors, replayable checkpoints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_workflow_list (which lists workflows) and nexo_workflow_update (which modifies).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_workflow_replay or nexo_workflow_resume. It lacks explicit context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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