Ghl Get Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get one workflow in full' clearly signals a read-only retrieval and enumerates the returned content (triggers, actions/nodes, branches). It does not mention error/not-found handling or authorization, but for a simple get operation with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the operation, the scope, and the included components in ten 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with an output schema and a precise one-line description, the definition is nearly complete. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly pointed to ghl_list_workflows for obtaining workflow IDs or mentioned the alternative for bulk listing, but the schema already covers ID provenance.

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%, with workflow_id and location_id already well-described (including the UUID source and default location). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one workflow'), and the scope of the result ('in full', including triggers, actions/nodes, and branches). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_list_workflows, ghl_create_workflow, and ghl_delete_workflow.

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 phrase 'one workflow in full' establishes that this tool is for retrieving a complete single workflow, and the parameter description ties workflow_id to ghl_list_workflows. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for list/create/delete operations or stating when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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