Get the full step-by-step payload for one user journey: problem, steps, user actions, system responses, related direction ids, and agent implementation notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow_id | Yes | Flow id from search_flows | |
| response_format | No | Return markdown or structured JSON |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the contents of the returned payload, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention any limitations, side effects, or the impact of the response_format parameter (e.g., how output differs between 'md' and 'json'). This is adequate but not rich.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the full step-by-step payload') and then lists the contents without wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns and its scope ('one user journey'). It does not explain potential use cases or how to obtain flow_id, but this is partially covered by the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a read-only getter.
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 the schema already documents both flow_id and response_format thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full step-by-step payload for one user journey'), listing specific content components (problem, steps, user actions, system responses, related direction ids, agent implementation notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flows (which likely returns summaries or lists) and get_design_direction (which focuses on a specific design direction).
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_flows, get_design_direction). It implies that the flow_id comes from search_flows (via the schema), but does not state it in the description. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: build_from_reference and build_from_reference_v2 serve nearly the same purpose, make_it_standout and polish_and_prove overlap heavily, and get_design_direction, synthesize_direction_from_references, and build_from_reference_v2 all produce design directions. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_design_direction, search_references, watch_site). Minor deviations like client_report, make_it_standout, and polish_and_prove are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.
30 tools is too many for a design toolkit, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Many 'get' tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_hero_concept, get_motion_recipes, get_asset_pack could be one tool). The count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.
The tool set covers the full design/build/critique/report/watch lifecycle well, from direction and sections to client reports and site monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit 'update' or 'delete' for references), but these are not critical to the core workflow.