Get a Wiro workflow

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses access-dependent behavior (protected workflows from other creators expose only inputs but remain runnable), redaction rules for secret-like fields and values, and a concrete caution about reusing 'saved:' values. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 action and return contents, then layered with constraints and cautions in a sensible order. The final sentence about 'saved:' values is slightly convoluted but still earns its place as an operational warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still covers permissions, masking, and the edit handoff flow. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor gaps like pagination or failure modes remain, and those are largely out of scope for a single-record read.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description implicitly clarifies include_graph by describing what the graph contains and when visibility is limited, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (read one workflow) and enumerates exactly what is returned: inputs, outputs, state, and the step graph. It is clearly distinguishable from list_workflows and update_workflow, which it names.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use instructions ('read this before running a workflow, and before editing one with update_workflow') and even specifies the mechanics of the edit handoff (pass the returned `updatetime` back as `loaded_updatetime`). No inference needed.

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