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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds real value beyond them: the answer is grounded only in the flow's steps/owners/systems/links, unsupported questions are answered with an explicit 'not stated' plus what is missing, and it consumes one AI help call from the plan. The quota/cost disclosure and grounding limits are meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action before the grounding and cost details. Every sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the grounding source, failure behavior, and the AI-call cost. The main omission is how the answer is shaped/returned and how it differs from the other flow-analysis siblings.

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%, so both parameters (flow_id, question) are already documented, including the 1000-character limit. The description adds only the implicit notion that flow_id identifies a saved flow, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('ask a question') and resource ('one saved Wavelength flow'), making the Q&A nature clear. It is distinguishable from list/query siblings by the singular 'one saved flow' scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with summarize_flow or review_flow.

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 purpose implies when to use it (asking a natural-language question about a flow), but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over siblings like summarize_flow, review_flow, query_flows, or suggest_followups. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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