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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses read-only and non-advancing behavior, but omits auth requirements, error handling, and idempotency, leaving gaps for a tool that takes a flowId.

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 stating the verb and the state it returns. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the returned state, which is helpful. But it leaves the required flowId completely unexplained and provides no return format detail beyond a bare list, so it is only partially 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% and the single required parameter flowId is never mentioned or explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter's name, so an agent must guess what flowId identifies.

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?

"Read" is a specific verb, and the description names exactly what is read: the current Kloudy question, selected candidates, and connection boundaries. The phrase "without advancing" distinguishes it from siblings like kloudy_build_answer or kloudy_build_start, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 "without advancing" implies this tool is for inspecting state when you do not want to progress the build, which gives some context. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use conditions, when-not-to-use conditions, or name alternative tools for advancing.

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