get_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves YAML content and searches two locations in order, but does not cover error handling (e.g., workflow not found), permissions, or side effects. Behavior is adequately described for a read operation.

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 two sentences, directly front-loading the purpose then adding search behavior detail. Every word is useful, no redundancy.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), and low complexity, the description covers key aspects: what it returns and where it searches. It lacks error handling info, but overall is mostly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only labels the parameter as a 'named' workflow, without specifying format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 retrieves the full YAML content of a workflow, with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'workflow'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workflows' and 'create_workflow' by specifying the action and output format.

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 mentions a search order (user dir then defaults), which provides context on where the tool looks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'list_workflows' for listing all workflows or 'update_workflow' for modifications.

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