flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that turbo is experimental and provides rich UI feedback/screenshot on failure. However, it omits safety implications (destructive potential), error handling beyond stopOnError, and overall execution model (e.g., synchronous vs async). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and action types. No redundancy or unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the high-level orchestration types but does not explain what the tool returns, how errors propagate beyond stopOnError, or the overall behavior when chaining steps. The schema fills many gaps, but the description could be more comprehensive.

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 89%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the critical 'action' parameter (batch, run, parallel vs. enum values without description). It also explains the 'turbo' parameter's effect. Other parameters are well-documented in the schema.

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 defines the tool as a flow orchestrator with three distinct action types (batch, run, parallel), each explained concisely. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (app, device, etc.) by indicating it's for orchestrating sequences rather than single actions.

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 explicitly indicates when to use each action type: batch for multi-command, run for automated sequences with loops/conditionals, parallel for same action on multiple devices. It also mentions turbo for rich feedback. However, it doesn't contrast with direct use of sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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