get-workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The 'get' verb suggests read-only, but this is implicit.

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 long sentence that enumerates many elements. It is informative but slightly verbose and could benefit from bullet points for clarity. Every clause adds value, but the structure is not optimized for quick scanning.

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?

Considering there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing what the response contains (metadata, description, components, mappings, connections, links). It also mentions related operations (session management). It lacks only potential error conditions or parameter edge cases.

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%, meaning the input schema already describes both parameters (workflowId, workflowVersion) with good detail. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as retrieving comprehensive workflow details, listing specific data types (metadata, description, components, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list-workflows' by emphasizing 'comprehensive details'.

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 getting detailed workflow info, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like 'list-workflows' or 'get-workflow-history'. No exclusions or context cues.

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