Get Workflow Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the use-case hint, but does not describe return format, pagination, or default behavior. Since annotations handle the core safety disclosure, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, first states purpose, second gives usage timing. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Perfectly structured and front-loaded.

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 read tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context for selection: it names the purpose and the specific scenario where it is needed. However, it does not explain the return value or configurable options (like subtask inclusion or field filtering), but the schema covers those. Slight gap in return-value information prevents a 5.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mentions 'node IDs or node-specific fields' which aligns with node_id_list and field_key_list, but adds no new details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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' with a clear resource 'workflow node details' and scope 'for a work item'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning workflow_transition and subtask_update in the usage context, making it clear this is a prerequisite read operation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before workflow_transition or subtask_update when node IDs or node-specific fields are unknown.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and identifies relevant alternatives, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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